c£- " 









^ 



^ 






A. K 

























, 






Pentateuchal Studies 



BY 

HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B. 

OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW 

Author of 

"THE ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH," "ESSAYS 

IN PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM," ETC. 



OBERLIN, OHIO, U.S.A. 

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA COMPANY 

London: Elliot Stock, 7 Paternoster Row, E. C. 

1912 






COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY 

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA COMPANY 



Registered at Stationers' Hall, London, England 



Printed in the United States of America 
Published October, 1912 



THE NEWS PRINTING COMPANY 
OBERLIN, OHIO. U.S.A. 



ff ; 

gCI.A327476 



i 



To 

The Reverend Professor G. Frederick Wright, D.D., LL.D. 
in gratitude for constant help and friendship 



PREFACE 

This book is a sequel to my " Essays in Pentateuchal 
Criticism." Of the studies it contains, Nos. 16 and 17 ap- 
peared in the Princeton Theological Review for 1907, the 
majority are reprinted from the Bibliotheca Sacra, while No. 
23 was read before the Victoria Institute and has already been 
published in the Journal of its Transactions. My best thanks 
are due to the editors of the two periodicals and to the Coun- 
cil of the Institute for the kind permission to include the 
various contributions in the present volume. I am also in- 
debted to Drs. Driver and Gordon for leave to republish their 
letters. 

A large group of these studies is concerned with the text- 
ual criticism of the Divine appellations in Genesis, and the 
larger question of which it forms part, the textual criticism 
of the Pentateuch. In order that the position with regard to 
these may be properly appreciated, some words of introduc- 
tion are necessary. 

In the year 1753 Astruc published the little book in which 
was first propounded the theory that a division of Genesis 
into earlier documents might be effected on the basis of the 
alternation of the Divine appellations aided by other criteria. 
This became the starting-point of the work that, in the course 
of the last one hundred and sixty years, has given us the 
present documentary theory of the Pentateuch, which at the 
beginning of the year 1908 was held by almost every Hebrew 
professor of note in? the Protestant universities of Northern 
Europe and America. The alternation of the Divine appella- 
tions was regarded as so important and so certain a basis 
for the Pentateuchal analysis, that, e.g., Dr. Driver, in the 



vi Pentateuchal Studies 

eighth edition of his " Introduction to the Literature of the 
Old Testament" (p. 21), reprints a passage from the earlier 
editions in which he balances the cumulative evidence of all 
the other criteria throughout the entire Pentateuch against 
the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in two passages of 
P in the Massoretic text of Genesis, being obviously unable 
to conceive a P that used the Tetragrammaton in Genesis. It 
would be easy to cite numerous dicta from other leading 
critics to the same effect. Indeed, the three main documents 
that were supposed to be represented in Genesis (J, E, and P) 
all owed their very names to the clue, P having long been 
called the (first) Elohist. The theory was regarded as in- 
vulnerable, and is still so treated in many new popular books. 
Nevertheless, a point of view was possible from which it 
is seen to be utterly untenable, and a number of writers have 
reached it independently. In the year 1903 J. Lepsius printed 
a series of articles in the Reich Christi in which he drew at- 
tention to the fact that the LXX does not always confirm the 
received Hebrew (Massoretic) text of Genesis in regard to 
the Divine appellations; in the same year J. Dahse published 
an independent study in the Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft ; 
and in 1904 a paper from the pen of H. A. Redpath appeared 
in the American Journal of Theology. At the time these 
studies, which were quite independent of one another and 
drew different inferences from the facts, were not much no- 
ticed, though Dahse's article has influenced some Roman 
Catholic scholars; but in 1908 J. Wellhausen, the leader of 
the documentary theorists, admitted to Dahse that he had 
put his finger on a sore point of the theory, and has now 
given permission for this statement to be published. While 
they differed among themselves on other matters, all three 
writers were at one in opposing the theory, and none of the 



Preface vii 

three at that time extended the application of scientific text- 
ual criticism to the other supposed criteria, though Lepsius 
made a number of arbitrary changes in the text. 

The matter attracted fresh attention in 1908, when Eerd- 
mans, Kuenen's pupil and successor in the Leyden chair, 
published the first part of his "Alttestamentliche Studien." 
Therein he severed his connection with the documentary the- 
ory which he had previously supported. He mentioned the 
existence of Septuagintal variants, and placed some reliance 
on the argument, but he showed acquaintance with only a 
small portion of the existing variants, and contributed no 
adequate discussion even of these. It is of course true that 
the oldest existing MS. of the LXX is many centuries earlier 
than any Hebrew MS. of Genesis, but that fact is not suffi- 
cient by itself to establish the importance or legitimacy of 
the textual method. 

The present writer's attention was first drawn to the sub- 
ject by a notice of Dr. Redpath's paper, and in January, 1909, 
he published in the Bibliotheca Sacra an article which has 
since been incorporated in the first chapter of " Essays in 
Pentateuchal Criticism." This led to a discussion in the 
Expository Times and elsewhere, and, in the issue, a large 
measure of support has been secured among conservative 
scholars in England and America for the application of text- 
ual criticism to the Divine appellations, Lias, Wright, Tisdall, 
Kyle, Reeve, Griffith Thomas, and Griffiths having all given 
in their adhesion. Meanwhile Professor Schlogl (who had 
been working at the subject independently) had adopted the 
method in Austria, and he has been followed by Professor 
Weiss in the same country. In Holland Dr. Troelstra has 
recently given it the weight of his support in " De Naam 
Gods in den Pentateuch," which is shortly to appear in Eng- 



viii Pentateuchal Studies 

lish dress, and in other publications and lectures. There are 
thus a rapidly increasing number of scholars in different 
countries who have come to the conclusion that the methods 
of the last one hundred and sixty years are indefensible, and 
the results attained by their adoption worthless. 

So much for those who either had never been publicly com- 
mitted to the documentary theory, or else had found reason 
to reverse their attitude. What has been the answer of the 
followers of Astruc? Nobody has been found to produce a 
reply to the facts and arguments alleged, but when they have 
had occasion to express themselves in public, the official ad- 
herents of the school have adopted one or other of four 
courses, each and all of which indicate that they are unable 
to defend their theory against the attacks of the textual critics. 

The first course is that of frankly admitting that the the- 
ory is in danger. Naturally the exact wording of the ad- 
missions varies with each individual. As already stated, 
Wellhausen himself has written to Dahse describing the text- 
ual evidence regarding the Divine appellations as a "sore 
point " {wander Punkt) of the theory. Professor E. Sellin, 
of Rostock, whose mind has been influenced by other con- 
siderations as well, goes so far as to say : " It will be seen 
that we stand in a time of fermentation and transition, and 
in what follows we present our own opinion merely as the 
hypothesis that seems to us to be the best founded." Simi- 
larly Professors Toy and H. P. Smith, who had suffered for 
their belief in the higher criticism when they thought it true, 
have now made the important admissions that are cited on 
pages 132 f. To realize what a change this implies, the words 
that Professor W. Robertson Smith wrote in 1889 should be 
recalled : " The first conditions of an effective comparison 
of Hebrew religion, as a whole, with the religion of the other 



Preface ix 

Semites, were lacking so long as the historical order of the 
Old Testament documents, and especially of the documents 
of which the Pentateuch is made up, was unascertained or 
wrongly apprehended; but thanks to the labours of a series 
of scholars (of whom it is sufficient to name Kuenen and 
Wellhausen, as the men whose acumen and research have 
carried this enquiry to a point where nothing of vital import- 
ance for the historical study of the Old Testament religion 
still remains uncertain)," etc. (Religion of the Semites, 
preface). To-day Wellhausen is shaken. Teaching that is 
subversive of the whole theory is given at Kuenen's old uni- 
versity, and the most candid minds among its supporters real- 
ize that a reexamination of the whole textual and historical 
field is essential. 

Unhappily, few of the higher critics are as candid as those 
just cited, and hence it becomes necessary to note other atti- 
tudes. The second main line of conduct is to- ignore the facts 
and arguments altogether, simply repeating the old exploded 
theories, and striving to keep the public in ignorance of the 
results of recent research. This has been followed, e.g., by 
Mr. W. E. Addis, who contributed to the Review of Theology 
and Philosophy a notice of my " Essays " that proceeded on 
these lines. As evidence of inability to meet the conservative 
case, this is of course second only to a direct admission. 

A third method — that of Professor Barton and others — 
is exemplified in the second of these studies. It consists of 
sneering about faith. It is said that Wellhausen once com- 
pared his own teaching with that of some of his followers in 
the words, " I knew the Old Testament was a fraud, but I 
never dreamt, as these Scotch fellows do, of making God a 
party to the fraud." Now the view of textual criticism is 
that the Old Testament is not a fraud, but has undergone 



x Pentateuchal Studies 

the ordinary vicissitudes of a MS. tradition, and must be sub- 
jected to the same scientific processes as all other writings 
that have passed through a similar experience. In view of 
what is said on pages 13-18, it is unnecessary to deal further 
with the question of faith ; but the method of sneering be- 
trays not less clearly than the other methods the inability of 
the documentary theorists to answer the textual case. 

The fourth method is the most regrettable of all. It con- 
sists of the deliberate misrepresentation of facts, and is prac- 
tised by Doctors Skinner, Briggs, and Driver. Numbers 8-11 
of this series (which should be read consecutively) are con- 
cerned with it, and the reader who will be at the pains of 
studying these carefully and impartially will inevitably reach 
the conclusion that not one of these men is a whit better able 
to meet the case set up than Wellhausen himself. Accusations 
of direct deceit are not to be made lightly; but when they 
become necessary they should be made so plainly that no 
doubt can be possible as to the issues raised. Every impartial 
and clear-headed man of the world will be able to see that 
No. 11 must have been immediately followed by proceeding's 
for libel if any one of the three men concerned had been in 
a position to vindicate his honor in the witness-box without 
committing direct perjury, and a perusal of No. 10 will help 
to show how impossible this was. Beyond all doubt Astruc's 
theory is in extremis when it has to be buttressed by the 
means here revealed. 

It may, however, be asked how far the establishment of the 
textual method will go towards the annihilation of the dom- 
inant theories. The answer must be dictated by a number of 
different considerations. There are, as already stated, numer- 
ous admissions in the work of influential critical writers as 
to the importance of the Divine appellations. Attempts may 



Preface xi 

now be made to belittle this clue, but every reader of any crit- 
ical analysis of Genesis knows that it is repeatedly invoked to 
effect a division. Moreover, it is impossible to apply textual 
criticism to the Divine appellations and yet to refuse to apply 
it throughout the Pentateuch. Nobody can say, " Here is an 
old document : I will treat some 340 words of it in the same 
way as I should any other ancient document, but I will not 
extend this treatment to any other word of it." Either the 
received Hebrew text must be accepted through thick and 
thin, or a scientific critical text must be constructed through- 
out. A number of instances of what is likely to happen in the 
latter case are to be found in these Studies. I understand 
from Dahse, who has been working at the story of Joseph 
and the passages treated by me as glosses in No. 8, that he 
has reached independently results that are practically iden- 
tical with mine. His full discussion will appear in " Text- 
kritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage I.," which is now 
in the press and will probably be published at about the same 
time as the present volume. The range of agreement between 
us appears to be extensive, but, at the time of writing, com- 
plete proofs are not available. I have, however, seen the first 
112 pages, and am able to say that the work will prove to be 
one of the most important contributions to the criticism of 
the Pentateuch that have come from Germany for many years. 
The instalment now in the press is limited to Genesis, and 
will presumably, therefore, not treat of many matters outside 
it. On the other hand, I am glad to observe that Cornill (Zur 
Einleitung in das Aite Testament (1912), p. 22) has now in- 
dependently taken the view of the text of Ezekiel xxxvii. 22 
and 24 which is set out on page 162. 

While the textual criticism of the Pentateuch looms large 
in the present volume, a number of studies are also concerned 



xii Pentateuchal Studies 

with various phases of its historical interpretation, especially 
with the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the history. And here 
the plight of the higher critical school is seen to be not less 
desperate. In my " Essays " and elsewhere I have shown that 
the reconstruction of the history of Israel rests primarily on 
the inability of Wellhausen and his followers to distinguish 
between a cairn and a house once they had applied the term 
" sanctuary " to each of these separate and dissimilar objects. 
Apparently I have so far influenced Dr. Driver that, in his 
note on Exodus xxi. 6 (see infra, p. 148), he expressly points 
out that the door cannot be that of the " sanctuary " and goes 
on to call this view " out of the question " — I suppose because 
he has at last realized that dubbing a stone or mound a 
" sanctuary " will not give it a door. The letter of Decem- 
ber 7, 1911, on page 150 appears to hold to this, but on May 
1, 1912, he wrote a Foreword commending Dr. McNeile's vol- 
ume on "Deuteronomy : Its Place in Revelation." In this 
book the interpretation that is " out of the question " is put 
forward as unquestionable for the benefit of " those who are 
unacquainted with Hebrew or who lack the time or oppor- 
tunity to study commentaries " (including presumably Dr. 
Driver's own commentary on Exodus). It will be seen that 
when a writer of Dr. Driver's standing is reduced to arguing 
(infra, pp. 150 f.) that he does not believe the only explana- 
tions he puts before his readers, and subsequently to com- 
mending views that he regards as " out of the question," the 
end is not far off. 

In other directions a sounder view of the history of Israel 
is undoubtedly making progress. A perusal of the last vol- 
ume published by Professor Eerdmans (Das Buch Leviticus) 
reveals the gratifying fact that he has independently reached 
many of the conclusions set out in No. 20, and it may be 



Preface xiii 

hoped that further study will reduce the differences between 
us. Moreover, a new tendency to give a hearing to the views 
of conservative scholars is becoming evident in many quarters 
where the critical theories were formerly accepted as unques- 
tionable. It is now certain that the documentary and evolu- 
tionary theories are mortally wounded. 

I cannot close this preface without a word of gratitude for 
the services rendered to the conservative case by Dr. G. Fred- 
erick Wright, to whom this book is dedicated. But for his 
courage and steadfastness of purpose against all odds through- 
out many years when the outlook must have seemed nearly 
hopeless, conservatism would not now occupy its present fa- 
vorable position. 

Harold M. Wiener. 
9 Old Square, 

Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

11 September 1912. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 
PKEFACE V 

I. Some Aspects of the Conservative Task in Penta- 

teuchal Criticism (I) 1 

II. Textual Criticism, History, and Faith 13 

III. The Dating of Genesis xxii. 19 

IV. The Age of Isaac 22 

V. The Post-Mosaica of Genesis 26 

VI. The Answer of Textual Criticism to the Higher 

Criticism of the Story of Joseph (I) 29 

VII. The Answer of Textual Criticism to the Higher 

Criticism of the Story of Joseph (II) 39 

VIII. The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 49 

IX. The Higher Critical Quandary (I) : A Correspon- 
dence WITH DRS. BRIGGS AND DRIVER 90 

X. The Higher Critical Quandary (II) : A Correspon- 
dence with Dr. Gordon 114 

XI. Some Aspects of the Conservative Task in Penta- 

teuchal Criticism (II) 124 

XII. Dr. Driver on Exodus 143 

XIII. The Negeb in Exodus 152 

XIV. The "King" of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 157 

XV. Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4 : " Moses commanded us a 

law " 169 

XVI. The Laws of Deuteronomy and the Arguments 

from Silence 170 

XVII. Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 195 

XVIII. The Altar of Joshua xxii 225 

XIX. The " Priests " of Exodus xix 230 



xvi Pentateuchal Studies 

PAGE 

XX. Peiests and Levites : The Fourth Chapter of Well- 

hatjsen's Prolegomena 231 

Priests and Levites in the Priestly Code 233 

Priests and Levites in the Other Portions of 

the Pentateuch 248 

Priests and Levites from Moses to Malachi 257 
Ezekiel 277 

Conclusion 281 

XXI. The High Priest 287 

XXII. The Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 290 

XXIII. The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 306 

Index I. (Texts) 339 

Index II. (Subjects) 347 



Pentateuchal Studies 



SOME ASPECTS OF THE CONSERVATIVE TASK IN 
PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM (I) 

[From the Bibliotlieca Sacra, January, 1911.] 

The necessity for meeting a large number of detailed 
arguments in the course of the great critical controversy as 
to the origin of the Pentateuch cannot be held to afford any 
justification for neglecting to take some general view of the 
task that confronts those who hold conservative opinions. 
Indeed, reflection shows rather that the efforts which have to 
be made for the purpose of grappling with individual diffi- 
culties must never be dissevered from the general principles 
by the aid of which alone success can be obtained: and the 
circumstance that many conservatives devote their labors to 
processes which are scarcely likely to prove more profitable 
than plowing the sands tends to emphasize the desirability of 
considering the lines along which our work should proceed. 

It is a condition precedent of all conservative work that the 
conservative writer should know the higher critical case a 
great deal better than any critic does. That may sound 
paradoxical and difficult : it is really the simplest thing in the 
world. For the conservative must know not merely the 
strength of the critical case, but also its weaknesses ; and these 
appear never even to be suspected by the critics. But unless 
he knows the critical case thoroughly, knows it in its seem- 
ing strength, he will never be able to detect its weaknesses. 



2 Pentateuchal Studies 

He must be perfectly acquainted with the arguments he is to 
refute if he is to have any chance of showing others exactly 
where they go of! the rails. 

Another matter to be borne in mind is that a style of apol- 
ogetics at present much in vogue is much more likely to 
damage our position than to improve it. I refer to the too 
frequent efforts to disprove the higher critical case by citing 
against one another the divergent opinions of different writers. 
" Here is a problem : Professor A says the solution is X, Pro- 
fessor B that it is Y: therefore there is no problem." Stated 
in this way, the logic is a trifle weak: but unfortunately it 
will be found far too frequently on our side. No doubt in 
many cases something that presents no difficulties has been 
magnified into a problem ; but in others there is a genuine 
question to be faced and answered, and in such cases this 
style of apologetics is worse than useless. The apologist may 
insist as he will : he may produce the most plausible of argu- 
ments: but the first time the student is confronted with the 
bed-rock difficulty in the text the conservative arguments will 
vanish into thin air and the solution of either Professor A or 
Professor B will make a fresh convert. The true method is 
to show that the solution of the problem is neither X nor Y, 
but Z : and then there is a probability that every fresh student 
who has to consider this text and the explanations suggested 
will be inclined towards the conservative case — finding that 
here at any rate none of the critical theories will hold water, 
while conservatism can remove the difficulty. The truth will 
ultimately stand by its own inherent strength and not through 
the divisions of its opponents. Our task is, above all things, 
constructive. 

But here perhaps somebody may interpose with two objec- 
tions. In the first place, it may be said that it is notoriously 



Pentateuchal Criticism 3 

extremely difficult to get any critic to read conservative work. 
That is unfortunately true ; but there are two answers. There 
exists a large body of men who are not professional critics 
though they have been influenced (and in some cases trained) 
by those who are: and many of these while regarding the 
critical position as probably correct are quite willing to listen 
to argument. The opinions of these men must in time react 
on the critics themselves. The second answer is, that even in 
the case of the most inveterate critics steady persistence is 
apt in the long run to have its usual effect and to compel re- 
luctant attention. For these reasons the conservatives should 
not allow themselves to be daunted, but should work away 
steadily until in the slow but inevitable course of events their 
arguments win recognition. 

Then there is another great objection. When the critical 
case has been demolished, the critics will still continue to be- 
lieve and teach it. This may sound far-fetched : actual exper- 
ience of the critics has, however, convinced me that it is only 
too true. 

'A man convinced against his will 
Is of the same opinion still.' 

In such cases the critics should, where possible, be induced 
to publish their revised views in the full confidence that these 
will have on their readers the effect that conservatives desire. 
An eminent critic on receiving the article in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for January, 190y, x wrote to me, saying in effect that 
he was too prejudiced to be affected in his views by the text- 
ual uncertainty of the Divine appellations in Genesis. Nothing 
would serve our purpose better than that he should publish 
something on those lines and expound it carefully to his 
pupils. "This theory was framed to account for certain 
1 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 4r-5Q. 



4 Pentatenchal Studies 

facts: those facts are now displaced: but, as I am prejudiced, 
I say that the theory is true in spite of all facts to the con- 
trary." x I myself have had too much experience of correspond- 
ing with higher critics, and have found them too unable to 
answer my points, to have any doubt of the unsoundness of 
their position ; and, that being so, the work of getting our ar- 
guments grasped may take time, but must ultimately succeed. 
A minor difficulty lies in the tendency of the critics to regard 
every point made by the conservatives as a " detail." The 
higher critical case is of course made up of a mass of details ; 
but, of these, some (as, for instance, Astruc's clue, and the 
blunders made by Wellhausen as the result of his inability to 
discriminate between a house and an altar) possess greater 
importance than others. It is amusing to see how in the eyes 
of higher critics on the defensive, that which but yesterday 
was a cardinal point in their case suddenly shrinks to a detail. 
But what is less amusing is the obvious reluctance to consider 
the ramifications of the " detail," and frankly to jettison ar- 
guments and hypotheses that have become untenable. We 
have still to discover the higher critic who, on finding reason 
to believe that his opponents have scored a point, will have 
the courage to look into the matter in all its bearings and then 
tell the public : " Such and such a position has become unten- 
able, and we are shown to have been wrong on this point : our 
theory therefore requires such and such modifications." In 
dealing with this characteristic, as with others, the conserva- 
tives have no choice but to continue working away persist- 
ently until they wear down the critical prejudices. 

1 Since the above was written, Professor Steuernagel has found 
himself compelled to argue that the documentary theory would stand, 
even if all the discrepancies in the Pentateuch failed (Theologische 
Literaturzeitung, October 15, 1910). It is greatly to our advantage 
that the critics should be driven into such positions. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 5 

Subject to these remarks, the critical arguments mostly fall 
under a few heads for conservative purposes, and I propose 
shortly to examine some of these. 

1. First, then, it will be found that the critics habitually 
use a large number of arguments which when investigated do 
nothing whatever to support their case and are at least equally 
compatible with the conservative position. I have often given 
examples of this. Take, for instance, the argument from style 
as applied to the legislation. Owing to the narrowness of 
their reading, the critics do not know that, in antiquity, style 
varied according to subject-matter. 1 I once discussed this 
matter with an eminent critic, pointing out to him that in 
classical studies men had come to recognize how different the 
use of style was in the ancient world to that in the modern. 
He said : " We are much further advanced than the classical 
philologists." The day before he had told me that he read 
nothing outside his own subject! Certainly that must have 
made it much easier for him to reach this notable conclusion. 

Many of the arguments urged as to the early chapters of 
Genesis fall in this category. As I have frequently pointed 
out, there are certainly passages that are much older than the 
time of Moses. Genesis x. 19, with its reference to Sodom 
and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim as still existing, is a 
familiar instance which anybody can appreciate without tech- 
nical training. (In fact I may remark in passing, that I often 
find it useful to begin with this point when discussing any of 
these matters with a partisan of the higher critics, just be- 
cause it is so easily and rapidly apprehended.) But if once 
pre-Mosaic sources be admitted in Genesis, very many of the 
higher critical arguments become valueless, for large sections 
of the data may be most naturally explained by this hypothe- 
1 See infra, No. 17, " Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style." 



6 Pentateuchal Studies 

sis. If a critic seeks to reply that the phenomena that charac- 
terize the supposed sources of Genesis continue thereafter, it 
is easy to rejoin by pointing out to him that as the author of 
x. 19 could not have written an account of, say, the Mosaic 
age, there must be something very wrong indeed with the 
critical methods which led them to assign this to a late stratum 
of J, i.e. to a hypothetical writer who is supposed to have 
flourished at least a thousand years after the latest date at 
which this passage could have been composed. 

2. A second great division of the critical arguments is fur- 
nished by difficulties that depend on the state of the text. The 
Pentateuch is a book that has been handed down to us 
through a great number of centuries. Whatever care may 
have been exercised in the process, it is inevitable that errors 
should have crept into the text, for the transmission has been 
accomplished by human means, and no man is infallible. Now 
we in fact know from ancient Versions and other sources 
that the received Hebrew Bible represents only one recension 
of the original ; and in many places that recension is for one 
reason or another clearly wrong. There are passages that 
violate the ordinary rules of grammar, passages from which 
no sense can be extracted, passages that can indeed be trans- 
lated and will give some sense from which however no satis- 
factory meaning can be elicited. 1 In such cases we may be 
sure the text has suffered. But there are instances in which 
what are obviously mere textual corruptions have been ex- 
ploited by the higher critics for the purposes of their theory. 
In such cases it is the duty of conservatives to devote them- 
selves to textual criticism and show on what the critical argu- 
ments are really founded. It is a great pity that this form of 

1 E.g. the statement that Saul was one year old when he began 
to reign. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 7 

criticism has been so largely neglected. An illustration of this 
that seems to me to be at once significant and unfortunate is 
the fact that originally no volume on the Text of the Old Testa- 
ment appears to have been thought necessary to the complete- 
ness of Messrs. T. and T. Clark's International Theological 
Library. Articles in Bible dictionaries and sections in the in- 
troductions to special commentaries form very insufficient 
substitutes for a really comprehensive treatise on this import- 
ant subject, and it is therefore gratifying to note that it is 
now intended to add such a volume to the series. 

3. A third great division of critical difficulties is consti- 
tuted by certain matters which require for their elucidation 
expert knowledge that the critics lack. I have repeatedly 
illustrated this and do not propose to labor the point now. 
Here it must be the duty of conservatives to endeavor to raise 
critical knowledge to a higher level. 

4. Closely connected with this last division is another — 
the difficulties that are due to our insufficient knowledge of the 
history of the Mosaic and preceding ages. These difficulties 
are being reduced by archaeology. But probably the most 
striking illustrations of the benefits conferred by this science 
are to be found in the effect that it is having on various hare- 
brained theories. It must be remembered that there have 
been important instances of breaches with the established 
Wellhausen school of late years. One example is provided 
by Kuenen's successor, Eerdmans, who is under the influence 
of archaeological material. In a different direction the same 
may be said of Professor Bruno Baentsch and those who are 
following him. Professor Baentsch came to the conclusion, 
from the archaeological material, that it was incorrect to argue 
for a late date for Monotheism. A more recent German higher 
critical work is Dr. A. F. Puukko's " Das Deuteronomium." 



8 Pentateuchal Studies 

His verdict is as follows : "lam decidedly of the opinion that 
the old Israelitish tradition which ascribes the Decalogue to 
Moses is credible, and does not stand in irreconcilable contra- 
diction with any historical facts" (pp. 44 f.). He means a 
simpler form of the Decalogue than that in the text of Exo- 
dus, but that such a form should be Mosaic — perhaps even 
preserved in writing — is a view that he has adopted as the 
result of archaeological evidence. Thus he writes, in a note 
on page 43 : " After the discovery of the stele of the Code of 
Hammurabi and the Tel-el-Amarna finds this hypothesis con- 
tains nothing unreasonable." The same influence showed it- 
self in the article contributed by Dr. C. F. Burney to the 
Journal of Theological Studies for 1908. Professor Sellin, 
in his new " Introduction to the Old Testament," advances 
further along the conservative path. It is true that the 
theories that are now being abandoned never had the slight- 
est probative force behind them: but they were the fashion 
with a certain school of writers, and it is therefore well that 
the successors of these writers should have to abandon them 
explicitly. So too the discovery of early tablets showing that 
Abraham was in fact a personal name is not grateful to those 
who wish to see in him a moon god. 

In this connection the following note (which will be found 
on p. 392 of the sixth German edition of Wellhausen's Pro- 
legomena) may cause some amusement: "I believe that the 
present legislation in Exod. xxi. xxii. is at bottom Canaanit- 
ish, i.e. pre-Israelite. The laws of" Hammurabi are better re- 
dacted, yet as far from being artificial as those of Exodus 
xxi. f. ; they may also be of great antiquity. But it does not 
follow from the fact that they are attributed to Hammurabi 
that they come from him. In view of experiences elsewhere 
this conclusion of the Assyriologists is not actually necessary. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 9 

A priori the converse is more probable." Comment would 
spoil the pure joy of this note. 

5. A fifth great head of points that press the critics re- 
quires very different treatment — I refer to the difficulties 
that are purely imaginary. 

Nothing is commoner than for a higher critic to misunder- 
stand a text or lay down some preposterous canon to whiefo 
history or literature is expected to conform, and then to erect 
a theory on such a basis. Sensible men rarely attach much 
importance to these sections of the higher critical case, and 
we need not linger on the subject, because Professor Toy, one 
of the most eminent of the American critics, has recently 
used very clear language in this connection. He writes quite 
frankly : " I do not pretend to defend all the arguments and 
conclusions of recent works on the Pentateuch. They some- 
times disagree among themselves, and sometimes press analysis 
too far and make difficulties where there are none." 1 

It will, I think, be found that many of the critical argu- 
ments can be grouped under one or other of the foregoing 
heads. To my mind the work of disposing of them consti- 
tutes by far the more important department of the conserva- 
tive task. The great fundamental improbabilities — religious, 
moral, historical, literary — of the higher critical case are so 
grave and so obvious that the majority of students who are 
not rationalists will necessarily incline towards conservatism 
if it be made at all possible for them, and that depends mainly 
on the line we take towards the arguments on which the 
critics rely. 

At the same time it must be remembered that conservatism 
is in a position to put forward a positive constructive case of 
*The Christian Register, April 28, 1910. 



10 Pentateuchal Studies 

its own. There are passages which to any unbiased mind 
prove date with sufficient certainty. In this connection the 
following admissions are of interest : " It will thus be seen 
that we have here a very vivid and true picture of Egyptian 
life; and, in particular, of the life of the lower orders " (Gray, 
Numbers, p. 104, on" Num. xi. 5) ; " The description is drawn 
from life, corresponding accurately to modern observation in 
its various details — the great multitude of the birds, their 
use of wind in their migration, the lowness of their flight, the 
ease with which when weary they are netted " {op. cit., p. 117, 
of the quails, Num. xi. 31-33). 

Such traits cannot be without their weight for any esti- 
mate of authorship and date. 

Or take the priestly legislation. Omitting technical points, 
its date is still clearly written on its face. After the exile the 
Ark was no longer in existence: yet this legislation gives 
careful directions for its construction. That may seem some- 
what belated, though the critics think nothing of it. But the 
mere construction is a bagatelle. Our legislator thinks it 
necessary to provide for the suitable housing of this Ark at 
a period many centuries before his time. Accordingly he 
forges most elaborate Divine ordinances for the construction 
of a tabernacle — again to meet the needs of an epoch that 
had long since elapsed. Next he sets apart a whole tribe to 
transport the national Ark and Sanctuary and gives most 
minute instructions as to the details of their conveyance. 
That, of course, is the most striking illustration in point of 
length. It is by no means the only one. Laws relating to 
booty and conquests (Num. xxxi., xxxiii.) are singularly out 
of place in the circumstances of the exilic and Ezran periods. 
I have repeatedly pointed to the irreconcilable conflict between 
Num. xxxi. 18, permitting unions with Midianitish women, 



Pentateuchal Criticism 11 

and the attitude of the religious leaders at this epoch. The 
system of tribes with separate tribal lots was as dead as the 
dodo, yet the injury that might accrue to them from the laws 
of inheritance forms the subject of anxious consideration and 
legislation (Num. xxxvi.). Of those laws of inheritance 
themselves I have written in " Studies in Biblical Law," and 
elsewhere. 1 

Another branch of the conservative argument will be pro- 
vided by the historical evolution that can be traced in the laws 
when the conservative dating is retained. That evolution is 
in accordance with the course of history observed in other 
societies. In such subjects as family, inheritance, homicide, 
covenant customs, theft, our information enables us to trace 
growth and change with more or less fullness. 2 

Increased attention must be given to the structure of the 
Pentateuch and the proofs of its substantial unity. It is almost 
fashionable now even for critics to recognize a measure of 
unity in Genesis. It will soon be possible to force them to 
admit the essential unity of the great bulk of Deuteronomy. 
Then will follow the testimony of Deuteronomy to certain 
portions of the earlier books and the evidences of unity in at 
any rate the bulk of " P's " narrative and the whole of the 
legislation. Many important consequences will flow from the 
recognition of the fact that in the Pentateuchal legislation we 
have, the laws of Moses, subject only to textual criticism, in 
the language of Moses. 

1 Other arguments of the same kind will be found in Essays in 
Pentateuchal Criticism, The Origin of the Pentateuch, and infra, 
No. 20, " Priests and Levites " ; also in Dr. Orr's Problem of the 
Old Testament. 

2 See the articles on " Law in Old Testament," " Family and In- 
heritance," " Crimes," " Wrongs and Punishments," " Homicide," 
"Witness," in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, and the lit- 
erature there referred to. 



12 Pentateuchal Studies 

Many other important lines of argument will be found in 
Dr. Orr's " Problem of the Old Testament." This article is 
purposely limited to a few aspects of the subject, for a treatise 
might be written in the attempt to deal with it exhaustively. 
Yet it has seemed in place to sketch roughly some of the lines 
on which we must work, in the hope that even such a hasty 
sketch might prove conducive to clear thinking on some points 
of cardinal importance. 



II 

TEXTUAL CRITICISM, HISTORY, AND FAITH 

[From the BiUiotheca Sacra, April, 1910.] 

I have been asked to write a note on the bearing of the 
textual criticism of the Pentateuch on History and Faith. 
The immediate occasion for the request was the publication of 
a footnote in the Journal of Biblical Literature; and, as the 
genesis of that footnote seems likely to be typical of the origin 
of other publications, it is worth while to examine into it. It 
appears, from the record of the Proceedings of the Society of 
Biblical Literature and Exegesis for December, 1908, that on 
Thursday, December 31, in that year — importance attaches 
to the date — Professor George A. Barton read a paper en- 
titled "Abraham and Archaeology." This was written in the 
usual strain of the Wellhausen critics, with many references 
to J 1 and J 2 , E and P. The paper contains no internal evi- 
dence that its author had ever read or considered the publica- 
tions of Dahse and Eerdmans, and proceeds on the assumption 
that all is for the best with the best of all possible critical the- 
ories. Unfortunately the Bibliotheca Sacra for the very 
next month (January, 1909) contained my article on " the 
clue to the documents" to which the'Wellhausenites have so 
far been unable to offer any reply, and the professor found his 
position changed. On the one hand his paper — as well as his 
earlier publications — committed him irretrievably to this hap- 
less theory; on the other, apparently neither he nor any mem- 
ber of his school had any inclination to tackle my facts and 
arguments. Public demonstration of this has been afforded 

by the series of notes that appeared in the Expository Times 

13 



14 Pentateuchal Studies 

for May, July, and September, 1909, under the title "The 
Name of God in Genesis." Anybody who will be at the pains 
of reading those notes carefully and consecutively will see that 
the Wellhausen critics cannot possibly reply to the communica- 
tions of Professor Schlogl and myself, and that their represen- 
tative, Dr. Skinner, only succeeded in making some show of a 
case in the May number by putting forward assertions that he 
has not substantiated under cross-examination. It is therefore 
an easy task to realize and pity the plight in which Professor 
Barton found himself, though it is less easy to commend the 
course he adopted. The paper was printed in the ordinary 
way in the Journal of Biblical Literature for 1909, and on 
page 166 Professor Barton added the following footnote to a 
phrase in the text about " the so-called warfare between ar- 
chaeology and criticism " : — 

" One of the curious psychological phases of this artificial war- 
fare is manifested in an article by Wiener on ' Pentateuchal Criti- 
cism ' in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1909. This writer 
argues in substance that the critical analysis rests on an insecure 
basis, because our sources of knowledge for the text are so late and 
imperfect that no certain inferences can be drawn from its state- 
ments. This argument is apparently published as a defense of 
faith !" 

Professor Barton is mistaken. The article was not pub- 
lished as a defense of faith. It was published for the advance- 
ment of truth by men who believe that the impartial and 
conscientious search for truth conducted with adequate equip- 
ment and judgment can never do any harm to Faith. But the 
points made or implied in the note are obviously two: (1) 
that no certain inferences can be drawn from the statements 
of the biblical text; and (2) that the writer's position is an- 
tagonistic to faith. It is proposed shortly to deal with these 
two matters. 



Textual Criticism, History, and Faith 15 

How far does textual criticism affect the history? The 
answer is, Scarcely at all. In ninety-nine cases out of a hun- 
dred it makes no difference whatever to the import of a nar- 
rative, whether AB be referred to as A or B or AB. In a 
footnote on page 156 of the impugned article, I was careful to 
write : " It may also be added that the difficulty of forming 
an opinion is due to the supreme unimportance of the subject. 
The difference between the two appellations so seldom makes 
any appreciable difference to the text that all criteria fail." 
That really disposes of Professor Barton's point, for his ref- 
erence was. solely to this one article. Nevertheless, it is better 
to extend the inquiry, and deal more generally with the effects 
of textual criticism on history. That the removal of glosses 
cannot have any important effect on the narrative is self- 
evident. Another department of textual criticism consists of 
transpositions; and, as the only result of these is to give us 
the same narrative in a different order, it is clear that the his- 
torical effects of this must also be very limited. The most 
important modification I have ever suggested was the rear- 
rangement of the text of the concluding chapters of Numbers ; 
and, as one of the results of that was to bring a hitherto 
chaotic collection of episodes into strict accordance with Deu- 
teronomy, the most that can be said against me is that I have 
substituted one comprehensible account of certain important 
transactions of the Mosaic Age for two accounts, one of which 
was intelligible and natural, while the other was not. Other 
less important transpositions have a very slight bearing on our 
conception of history. For example, the exact date at which 
Moses began to take a tent outside the camp or at which the 
priestly blessing was commanded does not really modify his- 
tory in any substantial degree. The only other department of 
textual criticism that affects the narrative is the correction of 



16 Pentatenchal Studies 

corrupt words. Yet the change of one or more letters here and 
there cannot really alter any important feature of a lengthy 
relation. We may come to the conclusion that a specified 
event occurred in the first month instead of the fifth, or that 
on a given occasion certain persons who stood in a particular 
place were elders and not priests, or that some transactions 
took place in a prison and not in the house of a captain of the 
guard ; but there the changes end, and it cannot be contended 
that alterations of this kind modify our conception of the 
course of history in any essential respect. 

So much for the part of the charge that relates to the narra- 
tive. Now for the point as to Faith. The present writer is a 
Jew, and therefore it is natural for him to consider in the first 
instance the possible effects on Judaism. It appears to him 
that there are two overwhelming answers to the suggestion 
that textual criticism as practised by him could in any wise 
damage Faith. The first is that all the dissentient MSS. and 
nearly all the Versions are the work of strictly orthodox Jews. 
The LXX was a Jewish translation made for the use of the 
Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt. The Syriac is supposed to 
have been another Jewish translation. Aquila was a Jew of 
the most strictly orthodox type — probably a disciple of Rabbi 
Akiba's. The Targums are Jewish renderings made for official 
use in the Synagogue. Other variants are supplied by the 
Talmud and old Jewish commentaries — indeed, by the foun- 
tain-heads of Jewish orthodoxy. I see no reason to believe 
either that the Jews of to-day are much better than their pred- 
ecessors or that the Bibles of the latter could possibly prejudice 
our faith. The second reason is even more complete. The 
task of textual criticism is to recover a more accurate account 
of the sayings and doings of Moses than is contained in the 
Massoretic text. The suggestion, therefore, can only be that 



Textual Criticism, History, and Faith 17 

a more correct version of the writings of Moses could be in- 
jurious to Judaism. Does the professor really think that such 
a bogey could frighten any educated Jew? 

But it may be said that the Faith that is to sustain injury at 
the present writer's hands is the, Christian Faith. It would be 
an impertinence for one who does not profess that Faith to 
affect to discuss what is or is not destructive of it. That task 
can be accomplished satisfactorily only by Christian divines. 
Yet I may be allowed to do something to adjust the issues for 
the latter. First, it would seem that they would have to con- 
sider the point I have just raised in the case of Judaism — the 
question whether the ipsissima verba of Moses could be de- 
structive of Faith. But, secondly, they will have to consider 
whether the New Testament is subversive of Christianity, for 
it is well known that the New Testament writers often quote 
the Old Testament in the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew 
text. Thirdly, the question will arise whether those sections of 
the Christian church which make official use of the LXX are 
destroying faith. Fourthly, it will be necessary to ask whether 
the whole of the Roman Catholic Church who use the Vul- 
gate as their Bible are lacking in faith. If and when all these 
questions have been answered in a sense hostile to the conten- 
tions of the present writer, they will doubtless proceed to ex- 
amine the positions of Professor Barton and other like-minded 
defenders of Faith. Let us just take an instance of what these 
are. The following passage is from Mark xii. 26, 27 : "And 
as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the 
book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, 
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob ? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the 
living : ye therefore do greatly err." What has the " reverent 
criticism" of our "defenders" to say to this passage? The 



18 Pentateuchal Studies 

book of Moses was not in fact the book of Moses. God never 
spoke to him in the bush, or if He did He certainly never spoke 
the words here cited, which are the composition of somebody 
who lived centuries later. As to Abraham — whose God these 
words claim Him to be — he probably was not a person at all. 
Here I may quote from Professor Barton's article: — 

" . . . . These facts do not prove Abraham a moon-god; absolute 
proof that a character is mythical is even more difficult than to 
prove it historical. We cannot, however, wonder that, in the absence 
of proof from contemporary sources that Abraham was a person, 
such facts had great weight. The discovery from an extra-Biblical 
source that Abraham was in Babylonia the name of a person, even 
though that person cannot be identified with the Patriarch, breaks 
in a slight degree though it by no means nullifies, the weight of 
these considerations." 

** One would, of course, prefer to believe that Abraham was an 
historical character, but some of the sublimest ideals have been en- 
shrined in story and parable, as well as in historic men, and the 
ideal is as real and as useful for teaching in one case as in the 
other." 

Thus the critics proceed with one limb of the text after an- 
other. This is believing criticism: this is what entitles them to 
sneer at my alleged " defense of faith " ! 



Ill 

THE DATING OF GENESIS XXII 

[From the BiUiotheca Sacra, April, 1910.] 

One of the oldest critical arguments is furnished by the 
proverb in Genesis xxii. which appears to refer to the Temple 
mountain. If so, the chapter could not be earlier than the time 
of Solomon. This rests on two points — " the land of Mo- 
riah " in verse 2, and the wording of the proverb itself in verse 
14. Textual criticism disposes of both these points. The 
word " Moriah " is notoriously corrupt. A land of Moriah is 
quite unknown, and the ancient authorities all differ from the 
Massoretic text. The Samaritan has n&m»n, the LXX rrjv 
vyfr^X^v, Aquila ttjv /cara(f)avrj f Symmachus Trjs oirraaia^^ 
the Vulgate visionis. These variants abundantly attest cor- 
ruption, but offer no help to the true text. The Syriac, how- 
ever, has a much more probable reading, " the land of the 
Amorite," and this seems to be correct. 

The proverb itself is rendered by the LXX iv tQ> opei Kvpio? 
oH<t>07}i which may be translated, " In the Mount the Lord 
was seen," though, if the aorist is gnomic, it would be more 
correct to translate " is seen." Apart from the tense, which 
is doubtful, this rendering does not postulate a different Heb- 
rew consonantal text from the Massoretic. It is merely a 
question of vowel-points. 

This Septuagintal reading arrests attention for two reasons. 
We may be sure that, however we may interpret it, the expres- 
sion " the Lord was seen " would rightly or wrongly be re- 
garded as an anthropomorphism by many readers. It is well 

19 



20 Pentateuchal Studies 

known that the Septuagintal translators avoided anthropomor- 
phisms. "A dogmatic interest," says Dr. Swete, " has been 
detected in some of these paraphrastic renderings, chiefly 
where the LXX have endeavoured to avoid the anthropomor- 
phisms of the original ; examples are most frequent in the Pen- 
tateuch." x Can it be supposed that translators influenced by 
a bias of this character would have given such a rendering if 
they had not been impelled by the pressure of a well-settled 
tradition as to the meaning and pronunciation of the Hebrew 
text? 

A second reason lies in the nature of the proverb " In the 
mountain the Lord is seen." The thought recalls the well- 
known passage in First Kin^s: "And the servants of the king 
of Syria said unto him, A god of mountains is their god; 
therefore they were stronger than we : but let us fight against 
them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 
.... Thus saith the Lord, Because the Syrians have said, 
A god of mountains is the Lord, but he is not a god of the 
valleys ; therefore will I deliver all this great multitude 
into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord" 
(1 Kings xx. 23, 28). Is it so certain that the theory of the 
Syrians was not originally shared by many an Israelite in early 
days? May not the existence of some such belief have been 
responsible for the view of the Syrians? If the Septuagintal 
reading of the proverb is correct, the answer can scarcely be 
doubtful. 

It will be seen that on this view the Massoretic pointing 
" Mount of the Lord," with its clear reference to the Temple 
Hill, is not original. It will have been produced by the nat- 
ural tendency to avoid a seeming anthropomorphism and the 
x An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2d edition 
(1902), p. 327. 



The Dating of Genesis xxii 21 

failure to enter into the ideas of a past age and realize that 

there may have been a time when many an excellent man re- 
garded Israel's God as a deity who manifested his power 
chiefly in the mountains. With the adoption of this reading, 
all reason for denying this chapter to Moses disappears. 



IV 
THE AGE OF ISAAC 

[From the Billiotliem Sacra, October, 1911.] 

In a frequently quoted passage Dr. Driver states one of 
the most effective of the higher critical objections to the 
chronology of Genesis: — 

"We all remember the scene (Gen. xxvii.) in which Isaac in 
extreme old age blesses his sons; we picture him as lying on his 
death-bed. Do we, however, all realize that, according to the 
chronology of the Book of Genesis, he must have been thus 
lying on his death-bed for eighty years (cp. the ages of Isaac and 
his sons, xxv. 26; xxvi. 34; xxxv. 28)? Yet we can only diminish 
this period by extending proportionately the interval between 
Esau's marrying his Hittite wives (Gen. xxvi. 34), and Rebekah's 
suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his 
brother's example (xxvii. 46), which from the nature of the case 
will not admit of any but a slight extension. Keil, however, does 
so extend it, reducing the period of Isaac's final illness to forty- 
three years, and is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that 
Rebekah, thirty-seven years after Esau had taken his Hittite wives, 
should express her fear that Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, will 
do the same!" 1 

It has been shown in former articles that the Septuagintal 
materials often suggest that chronological difficulties have 
arisen from erroneous notes being incorporated in the bibli- 
cal text. We are too familiar with marginal notes contain- 
ing well-meant but erroneous chronological data in modern 
editions of the Bible for such phenomena to create any sur- 
prise. In an age before printing, the contents of such notes 
could find their way into the text only too easily. Hence, 
when we are confronted with a difficulty such as this, our 

1 Contemporary Review, vol. lvii. p. 221. 
22 



The Age of Isaac 23 

first task must be to inquire whether any important variants 
have been preserved. It happens that this is indeed the case. 
There is a suggestive textual variant in xxxv. 28, and there 
is a no less suggestive difference of translation (involving no 
alteration of the Hebrew text) in xxvii. 41. First, as to 
the variant reading. According to the Massoretic text of 
xxxv. 28, Isaac was 180 years old when he died. According 
to Septuagintal MSS. d, p, the number should be 150. It is 
remarkable that these are the very MSS. which present 
valuable chronological variations in the case of the dif- 
ficulty with regard to Ishmael's birth. 1 It seems certain 
that they represent a recension of the Septuagint which in 
some important matters goes back to a textual tradition that 
differed from the Massoretic. 

The number 150 may or may not represent the original 
reading of the Hebrew, but it provides a useful reminder 
that nothing is more susceptible to corruption than numbers. 
It also — and this is a more important point — reminds us 
that numbers of this kind are merely round numbers, not to 
be taken literally. It is astonishing to find Dr. Driver plac- 
ing reliance on such numbers as 60 and 40 in xxv. 26 and 
xxvi. 34. It is well known that these numbers are often used 
in the Bible where we should employ such phrases as " sev- 
eral," " a considerable number of," etc. That is to say, they 
frequently express an unknown or indeterminate period of 
some duration. Hence calculations based on them are apt 
to be fallacious, and this part of the argument is therefore 
unsound. 

More interest perhaps attaches to the rendering of xxvii. 
41. " We picture him as lying on his death-bed." Yes, but 
why ? Chiefly because the English versions represent 
1 See infra, p. 81. 



24 Pentateuchal Studies 

Esau as stating, in this verse, that the days of mourning for 
his father are at hand. We thus appear to have the unim- 
peachable authority of the eldest son for the view that Isaac 
was in a critical condition. But this rendering is not 
the only one possible, nor was it adopted by the Sep- 
tuagintal translators. In their view the Hebrew ex- 
presses a ferocious wish : " May the days of mourning for 
my father approach, in order that I may slay my brother 
Jacob." That is a very different thing from a statement that 
they actually are at hand. And this translation surely has 
the advantage of representing far more truly and vividly the 
fierce, unbridled character of the man and the intensity of 
his hatred for his brother. He prays for his father's death, 
in order that he may kill Jacob. Assuredly the view of the 
Septuagintal translators is more in accordance with the known 
character of the nomads of the desert than the kid-glove 
alternative of the English versions. 

If the chapter be read in the light of this modification, we 
find that the idea that Isaac is dying has no substantial basis. 
When we look at the real nature of the event, we see that 
the patriarch, being an old man, thinks that he may die at 
any time, and had therefore best put his affairs in order. 
" Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death .... 
make me savory meat .... that my soul may bless thee before 
I die" (ver. 2, 4), Most people to-day must be familiar 
with cases of old men who could have said the same thing, 
made their wills to meet the eventuality with due prudence, 
and lived for many years after. Such things are, after all, 
matters of everyday experience in any large community. 
The only modern touch that is wanting in the picture is, that 
Isaac had not been " given up " by the most celebrated phy- 
sicians of the dav. But I have no doubt that old men some- 



The Age of Isaac 25 

times lived much longer than was expected, even when there 
were no doctors to prophesy their impending demise. Any 
reader of mature age could cite cases from his own experi- 
ence in which a man has lived twenty or thirty years after 
his death had been confidently anticipated. Surely the Bible 
narrative is not to be condemned as unhistorical on the simple 
ground that it presents us with episodes that in their main 
essentials could be paralleled from the most ordinary 
experience. 



V 
THE POST-MOSAICA OF GENESIS 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1911.] 

The application of textual criticism reduces the post- 
Mosaica of Genesis to a negligible quantity. We have seen 
that the Septuagintal evidence removes Genesis xxii. from the 
category of passages that could have been written only after 
the time of Moses. 1 Two of the other best-known passages are 
treated by Dr. Carpenter as the additions of glossators — in 
my opinion rightly. These are xii. 6b ("And the Canaanite 
was then in the land ") and xiii. 7b ("And the Canaanite and 
the Perizzite dwelled then in the land"). In these passages 
" then " if interpreted to mean " then still " cannot be earlier 
than the time of Solomon; and this seems the more plausible 
interpretation. Another passage that should probably be re- 
garded as a commentator's addition is xxxvi. 31-39. Dr. 
Carpenter's note on the first of these verses is as follows : 
" With this verse R introduces an extract 32-39 from a doc- 
ument wholly different in style from the context. Its source 
is unknown, but on the analogy of other passages of com- 
posite origin, e.g. x, it is provisionally assigned to J." 

With the exception of a single word the other texts on which 
the critics rely to prove the late date of Genesis all fail to do 
so when carefully examined. It is said that the use of the 
" sea " to denote the West points to a narrator who lived 
in Palestine. Thus we read in xii. 8, " having Bethel on the 
sea side " ; xiii. 14, " northward and southward and eastward 
and seaward." The conclusion most certainly does not follow 
from the premise, for a narrator could easily picture to him- 
1 See supra, No. 3, "The Dating of Genesis xxii." 
26 



The Post-Mosaica of Genesis 27 

self the geographical situation of Palestine, wherever he might 
himself be living; but in point of fact the linguistic usage of 
" seaward " for " westward " is more probably to be explained 
by the incorporation in Genesis of stories that had come down 
from the patriarchal times with their language unchanged. A 
very strong instance of this occurs in x. 19 : " As thou goest 
toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim," — a 
phrase that could not have originated after the destruction of 
the places named in Abraham's time. In the face of such a 
passage as this no argument for late date can be drawn from 
the usage of the word " sea " ; but a presumption of very 
early date arises. 

As Konig points out, the name " Hebron " in Genesis does 
not prove post-Mosaic origin; because, though Joshua xiv. 15 
states that " the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiriath- 
arba," we have no knowledge as to when the change of name 
was made. The narrative does not suggest that Caleb was 
responsible for the change. On the contrary, in the preced- 
ing verses the place is called Hebron, as would be done if it 
had already borne that name when the gift was made. Hence 
this antiquarian note does nothing to prove the post-Mosaic 
date of passages in the Pentateuch. 

More important is the argument based on the phrase " the 
land of the Hebrews " in xl. 15. This is supposed to be an 
anachronism, on the ground that Canaan could not have been 
called the land of the Hebrews before the conquest. 

The ordinary Septuagintal text here reads " land of He- 
brews." The unusual omission of the article cannot be due to 
chance : for " land of Hebrews " is neither Greek nor Hebrew 
for " land of the Hebrews." Therefore the original text must 
have contained some place name instead of the word " He- 
brews." Only two variants are recorded in the larger Cam- 



28 Pentateuchal Studies 

bridge LXX : one of these is " of Egypt," the other " of a 
Hebrew." Neither of these makes sense: but both confirm 
the inference that must be drawn from the absence of the 
article. They appear to go back to a text in which some 
singular word stood. We are therefore definitely able to say 
that there is corruption in this passage, but with our present 
materials we cannot restore the original text. 

Most of the other alleged post-Mosaica appear to be gener- 
ally abandoned by the critics. Since the discovery of the 
Tel el-Amarna tablets, " Salem " in xiv. 18 no longer ranks as 
an anachronism. It was once claimed that the " tower of 
Eder " in xxxv. 21 pointed to late date (cp. Micah iv. 8; Neh. 
iii. 1), but nothing is now heard of this curious contention. Dr. 
Driver holds that "in Israel" (xxxiv. 7) is inconsistent with 
Mosaic authorship, but is so palpably in error that his fellow- 
critics do not generally advance this argument. // the gloss 
in 1 Samuel ix. 9 is in all respects accurate, and if the word 
" prophet " in Genesis xx. 7 is used in precisely the same 
meaning as under the monarchy, then no doubt a case may be 
made against this word ; but the postulates place considerable 
strain on men's faith. 

There is, however, one word in Genesis against which a good 
case can be made — the name " Dan " in xiv. 14. This would 
naturally be identified with the later Dan, for the hypothesis 
that there might be another place of this name possesses little 
probability. The only variants recorded in the larger Cam- 
bridge Septuagint — " Dam " and " Dathan " — appear to be 
due to Greek corruptions. The word may be a gloss, as Dr. 
Orr thinks: it may, however, equally well be a corruption of 
some other word. In any case it would show a lamentable 
lack of proportion to argue for a late date for Genesis as a 
whole on the ground of this single word. 



VI 



THE ANSWER OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM TO THE 

HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE STORY 

OF JOSEPH (I) 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1910.] 

It has been shown in articles that have appeared in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra during the past few years how the mod- 
ern critical theory breaks down at one point after another 
when submitted to adequate tests. 

Amongst other arguments, evidence has been advanced to 
prove that in many instances scientific textual criticism kills 
the higher criticism. It is believed that this is so to a very 
large extent in the book of Genesis, and it is proposed in the 
present article to utilize some of the material for this purpose. 

The writings of Moses have been subjected to prolonged 
study during many centuries, and countless notes have been 
written on them. Nowadays such notes are written or printed 
in a form which renders any mistake as to their nature impos- 
sible, but this was not always so. As with all ancient books 
that have depended on a MS. tradition, so with these, there is 
reason to suppose that many glosses have been incorporated 
with the text. By the removal of such glosses — assuming 
that such removal is possible — the text would gain in clear- 
ness. It happens that Septuagintal and other readings that 
have been preserved to us often suggest that words and clauses 
found in our Massoretic text are not original. Of course the 
mere fact that some authority omits a word is not in itself suf- 
ficient to show that the word is a gloss ; but if the result of the 
omission is to leave a superior text, and if the presence of the 

29 



30 Pentatenchal Studies 

word is most easily accounted for as the work of a glossator, 
a presumption arises that the shorter text is the more correct. 
As a general rule such omissions will not affect the sense ma- 
terially, though they may enhance the literary beauty of the 
narrative; but there are cases where grave difficulties disap- 
pear when the glosses are removed. A very interesting ex- 
ample occurs in xxi. 1, where the Septuagintal MS. n omits 
the words " And the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken." 
This leaves the sense unaffected, but it makes the narrative 
more vigorous and robs the higher critics of a " doublet." 
Examination of the text suggests too that the lists of words 
on which the critics often place so much reliance are largely 
due to the interpolations of glossators. We shall find instances 
in the narrative we are to examine. 

A particularly favorable example of the use of textual crit- 
icism is to be found in the story of Joseph. It will be best to 
omit chapter xxxvii. for the present, because it calls for the 
weighing of rather delicate arguments, and this can be better 
effected in the light of the experience to be gained by first 
considering the text of the later chapters. In the Massoretic 
text we find in xxxix. 20 f. that Joseph's master threw him into 
prison, " the place where the king's prisoners were bound." 
He acquired favor with the keeper of the prison, and so came 
into the position which brought him into touch with Pharaoh's 
two officers when they were imprisoned. But in chapter xl. we 
find him imprisoned " in the house of the captain of the 
guard," i.e. his master (called Potiphar in xxxix. 1), and it is 
this captain who puts Joseph in charge of the officers, the 
keeper of the prison having disappeared altogether and the 
prison itself being suddenly identified with " the house of the 
captain of the guard." The discrepancy is undeniable. The 
higher critics try to remove it by resolving the story into two. 



The Story of Joseph 31 

On this view, J makes Joseph the slave of an Egyptian who 
throws him into prison, while E makes him the slave of the 
captain of the guard in whose house the two officers are bound. 
Dr. Carpenter therefore gives to redactors the following 
phrases : Genesis xxxix. 1, " Potiphar an officer of Pharaoh's, 
the captain of the guard " ; ver. 20, " the place where the king's 
prisoners were bound " ; xl. 1, " that the butler of the king of 
Egypt and his baker offended their lord, the king of Egypt " ; 
ver. 3, " into the prison the place where Joseph was bound " ; 
ver. 5, " the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, which 
were bound in the prison " ; ver. 7, " with him " ; ver. 15, 
" And here also have I done nothing that they should put me 
into the dungeon " ; xli. 14, " And they brought him hastily 
out of the dungeon." 

The Septuagintal evidence entirely disposes of all this. Ex- 
cept in xl. 5, 7, it confirms the Massoretic text of the passages 
rejected by Dr. Carpenter, and it shows that the discrepancy 
has arisen not as the result of the combination of two stories, 
but partly through the corruption of a few letters, partly 
through the work of glossators. The text of chapter xxxix. 
calls for no notice here ; for, though the evidence suggests that 
a few words here and there have been added by glossators, 1 
these do not at all affect the problem we have to consider. But 
in chapter xl. the matter is different. In verse 3 the words 

1 For example, the original LXX certainly omitted the following 
(among other) phrases: ver. 3, "in his hand"; ver. 11, "of the 
men of the house" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 12, "in her hand"; 
ver. 13, the whole verse ; ver. 22, " he was the doer of it." It prob- 
ably also omitted the following phrases : ver. 5, " and over all that 
he had " ; ver. 10, " or to be with her " ( ? omitted by Vulgate) ; 
ver. 20, " and he was there in the prison." The omission of verse 
13 is due to homoeoteleuton (for in the Hebrew verses 12 and 13 
both end with the same word), but the others may all be glosses, 
and indeed probably are. In no case does their removal affect the 
sense materially. 



32 Pentateuchal Studies 

" in the house of the captain of the guard " were lacking in the 
original LXX and are known to have been added by Origen. 
In verse 4 the LXX and Vulgate read " keeper of the prison " 
for " captain of the guard." The Hebrew of the two phrases 
would be as follows : — 

"inDnrP2"iB> "keeper of the prison" 
DTOttm^ "captain of the guard" 

It is easy to see that damage to a MS. might be responsible 
for a mistake. In verse 7 Lucian (supported by other Septua- 
gintai MSS. and the Vulgate) omits " in his master's house." 
In xli. 10, A, the best MS., (supported by four cursives,) again 
reads " keeper of the prison " for " captain of the guard." 
These readings dispose of the difficulties, but it may be well 
to give the text of Genesis xl. 1-? as the LXX appears to have 
had it originally, for the purpose of showing the limits within 
which variations are possible in a passage that seems to have 
been very extensively glossed. The readings adopted in each 
case rest on some evidence, but the result as a whole is ob- 
tained by putting together hints from various sources. 

"And it came to pass after these things, that the butler of the 
king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord the king of Egypt, 
and he was wroth against his two officers. And he put them in 
ward into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. And the 
keeper of the prison charged Joseph with them, and he ministered 
unto them : and they continued a season in ward. And they 
dreamed a dream both of them in one night. And Joseph came in 
unto them in the morning, and saw them, and, behold, they were 
sad. And he asked them, Wherefore look ye so sadly to-day?" 

This text makes sense. It is also superior to the Massoretic 
in other ways. In verse 2 " Pharaoh " is the sort of explana- 
tory addition that is dear to glossators, and so still more is the 
tautologous " against the chief of the butlers, and against the 
chief of the bakers," a very clumsy addition to the text. In 
verse 5 " each man his dream " is again unnecessary, while 



The Story of Joseph 33 

" each man according to the interpretation of his dream " 
makes no sense. The words " the butler .... prison " in the 
same verse are a very cumbrous and unnatural piece of epexe- 
gesis, and in verse 7 it is extremely improbable that a narrator 
who had just referred to the officers as " them " should think 
it necessary to explain their identity, company, circumstances, 
and (false) location with the words " Pharaoh's officers that 
were with him in ward in his master's house," while " saying " 
is a very frequent gloss, being in fact equivalent to our in- 
verted commas. 1 Hence the Septuagintal text is, from a lit- 
erary point of view, a great improvement on the Massoretic. 

The critical difficulties, of course, vanish; but it is interest- 
ing to note that our great philologists have attributed to early 
sources late glosses that were unknown to the Septuagintal 
translators and in some cases to Jerome, while referring to 
redactors portions of the original narrative. 2 

Genesis xli. 45 brings us, to another difficulty. "And Joseph 
went out over the land of Egypt " is a doublet of the similar 
statement in verse 46. This half verse and the first half of 
verse 46 are therefore given to P. But in point of fact the 
clause was missing in the original LXX, as appears from 
Field's Hexapla. It is probably the work of a glossator. 3 

1 The Vulgate has Sciscitatus est eos dicens, i.e. " He asked them, 
saying." 

2 There is Septuagintal evidence for regarding the following 
phrases in the Massoretic text of chapter xli. as glosses: ver. 8, 
"unto him" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 11, "Pharaoh's" (the sec- 
ond occurrence; omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 13, "Pharaoh's" (omit- 
ted by Vulgate). 

3 Septuagintal evidence suggests that the following phrases in the 
Massoretic text of chapter xli. may also be glosses : ver. 4, " the 
ill-favored and lean-fleshed kine " ; "seven" (both omitted by Vul- 
gate) ; ver. 5, "and he slept"; ver. 8, "And it came to pass in the 
morning," "all" 1°, "Pharaoh" (omitted by Vulgate), "unto 
Pharaoh" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 11, "we dreamed each man 



34 Pentateuchal Studies 

A similar remark must be made as to the phrase "And Jo- 
seph knew his brethren " in xlii. 8. This is missing in a MS. of 
Holmes and merely repeats the statement of the preceding 
verse. By the critics it is treated as a doublet and made an 
argument for dissection. 

At this point it will be well to consider an argument that 
affects many chapters of the narrative. Sometimes we read 
" Jacob " and sometimes " Israel " as the designation of Jo- 
seph's father; and it is therefore contended that we have to 
deal with three sources, one of which (J) speaks of " Israel," 
while the other two (E and P) invariably call the patriarch 
" Jacob.'' Like so many other critical contentions, this can be 
supported only by postulating a host of redactors, etc., who 
would introduce the wrong names at inopportune moments. 
Thus in xlii. 4 (J) " Jacob " comes out; in xlvi. 2 (E) "Is- 
rael" has been substituted for Jacob; in verse 5 (E) every- 
thing from "and the sons of Israel" to the end of the verse 
goes to a redactor; in xlviii. 8, 11, 21, (all E) "Israel" has 
again to be removed ; and in xlix. 28 the beginning of the verse 
down to " unto them " goes to a compiler. 

In weighing these views it must not be supposed that the 
higher critics have adduced a scintilla of evidence in their sup- 
according to the interpretation of his dream " ; ver . 12, " Our 
dreams to each man according to his dream he did interpret " (prob- 
ably unknown to the Vulgate too) ; ver. 17, "unto Joseph" (omit- 
ted by Vulgate); ver. 19, "very," "and lean-fleshed" (omitted by 
Vulgate); ver. 23, "withered" (omitted by Vulgate); ver. 27, 
" and ill-favored " ; ver. 34, " in the seven plenteous years " ; ver. 
44, " or his foot " ; ver. 46, " king of Egypt " ; ver. 51, " Joseph " 
(omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 56, "And the famine was sore in the 
land of Egypt." It will be observed that in no case does the omis- 
sion affect the sense. I am therefore of the opinion that all these 
phrases are glosses. It is worth noting that in verse 34 the LXX 
has " take the fifth part of all the products of the land of Egypt." 



The Story of Joseph 



35 



port. Nothing is further from, their minds. Their case is 
that certain phrases conflict with their theory and must on 
that account be spurious. The case of the scientific textual 
critic, on the other hand, is that the textual evidence must be 
carefully weighed in the light of all relevant considerations for 
the purpose of constructing a scientific critical text, and that 
this process must be conducted without reference to any mod- 
ern theories of date and composition. 

In point of fact the occurrences of the names " Jacob " and 
" Israel " are in many cases very doubtful from a textual point 
of view, as the following table, which is not exhaustive, will 
show. It should be said that the Vulgate is more paraphrastic 
than the LXX and must be used with caution, particularly in 
its present unrevised condition ; yet the support it receives in 
many instances from other authorities, and the intrinsic value 
of many of its readings, even where it stands alone, entitle its 
evidence to consideration. 



Reference. 


Alleged 
Source. 


Massoretic 
Text. 


Variants. 


Gen. xxxvii. 2. 


P. 


Jacob. 


Vulgate, his. 


Gen. xxxvii. 2. 


J. 


their father. 


LXX, Israel (see Field's 
Hexapla, ad. loc.) ; 2 cur- 
sives, Jacob. 


Gen. xxxvii. 3. 


J. 


Israel. 


LXX, Jacob, with some au- 
thority for Israel. 


Gen. xxxvii. 13. 


J. 


Israel. 


1 MS. of the LXX, his fa- 
ther. 


Gen. xxxvii. 14a. 

Gen. xxxvii. 34. 
Gen. xlii. 4. 


E. 

E. 
J. 


he said. 

Jacob. 
Jacob. 


Origen found Israel said, 
and obelized Israel (Field) . 
Vulgate omits. 
LXX omitted; Origen in- 
serted it. 


Gen. xlii. 5. 


J. 


And the sons 
of Israel. 


Vulgate omits the whole 
phrase ; 1 Septuagintal 
MS. (y) omits the verse; 
2 (l,o) read Jacob for 
Israel. 



36 



Pentateuchal Studies 



Reference. 



Gen. xlii. 36. 

Gen. xliii. 2. 
Gen. xliii. 8. 

Gen. xliii. 11. 



Alleged 
Source. 



Massoretic 
Text. 



Gen. xlvi. 1. 
Gen. xlvi. 2. 

Gen. xlvi. 5. 



Gen. xlvi. 6. 



Gen. xlvi. 8. 



P. 



j Jacob their 
! father. 



their father. 



unto Israel 
his father. 



their father 
Israel. 



Gen. xlv. 27. 


E. 


Jacob 
their father. 


Gen. xlv. 28. 


J. 


Israel. 



Israel. 
Israel. 



Israel Jacob 
their father 
(the Heb. or- 
der being, 
and carried 
the children 
of Israel Ja- 
cob their 
father). 



Jacob. 



Children of 
Israel. 



Variants. 



1 Heb. MS. of Kennicott's 
reads Israel for Jacob; 1 
Septuagintal MS. omits 
the whole phrase. 
Vulgate, Jacob; many Sep- 
tuagintal authorities, Ja- 
cob their father. 

1 Heb. MS. of Kennicott's 
omits the whole phrase; 
Vulgate, Ethiopic, and 
Chrysostom omit Israel. 

2 Heb. MSS. of Kennicott's 
omit their father ; the best 
MS. of the LXX originally 
omitted Israel, while an- 
other of Kennicott's MSS. 
reads, their father Jacob. 
Vulgate and 1 MS. of the 
LXX (f) omit. 

1 Heb. MS. of De Rossi's, 
Vulgate, 1 MS. of the LXX, 
Chrysostom, omit; 3 MSS. 
of the LXX and the Ethi- 
opic read Jacob. 

2 MSS. of the LXX, Ja- 
cob. 

1 MS. of the LXX, Jacob; 
Vulgate paraphrases. 

Most Septuagintal author- 
ities divided between Ja- 
cob Israel their father, Ja- 
cob their father, and Is- 
rael Jacob their father. 
The best MS. reads Israel, 
but omits Jacob. The Vul- 
gate reads tuleruntq-ue 
eum filii, omitting both 
names. 

Vulgate, Old Latin, and 
Chrysostom omit. The 
other Septuagintal author- 
ities divide as to the 
proper position of the 
word — a fact that points 
to its not being original. 
1 Heb. MS. of Kennicott's 
and 1 MS. of the LXX 
omit. 



The Story of Joseph 



37 



Reference. 


Alleged 
Source. 


Massoretic 
Text. 


Variants. 


Gen. xlvi. 8. 


P. 


Jacob and 


1 Heb. MS. of Kennicott's 






his sons. 


3 MSS. of the LXX (d, n, 
p), and the Ethiopic omit. 
There are other Septua- 
gintal variations. Vulgate 
has ipse cum Uteris suis, 
which may be a para- 
phrase or may point to a 
different Heb. text. 


Gen. xlvi. 29. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate, 1 MS. of the LXX 
(e), and Chrysostom omit ; 
1 other MS. of the LXX 
(n), the Ethiopic, and the 
Syro-Hexaplar (margin) 
read Jacob. 


Gen. xlvi. 30. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate, his father. 


Gen. xlvii. 7. 


P. 


Jacob 1°. 


Vulgate, Ethiopic, and 5 
MSS. of the LXX omit. 


Gen. xlvii. 7. 


P. 


Jacob 2°. 


Vulgate omits. 


Gen. xlvii. 8. 


P. 


Jacob. 


Vulgate omits ; 1 M'S. of 
the LXX (p), him. 


Gen. xlvii. 9. 


P. 


Jacob. 


Vulgate and 1 MS. of the 
LXX (p.) omit. 


Gen. xlvii. 27. 


J. 


Israel. 


2 MSS. of the LXX (d, h) 

and Chrysostom, Jacob. 


Gen. xlvii. 28. 


P. 


Jacob 1°. 


Vulgate omits, 1 MS. of 
the LXX reads (in the 
margin) Israel. 


Gen. xlvii. 28. 


P. 


Jacob 2°. 


Vulgate and 1 MS. of the 
LXX (s) omit. 


Gen. xlvii. 29. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate and 2 MSS. of the 
LXX (d, f) omit. 


Gen. xlvii. 31. 


J. 


And he 


1 MS. of the LXX (1), 






said. 


And Jacob said. 


Gen. xlviii. 2. 


E. 


Jacob. 


Vulgate, the old man (? 
paraphrase). 


Gen. xlviii. 2. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate, he; about 7 MSS. 
of the LXX, and Jacob. 


Gen. xlviii. 3. 


P. 


Jacob. 


1 M'S. of Kennicott's per- 
haps, Israel. From a Latin 
translation it would seem 
that the Syriac also has 
Israel. Vulgate para- 
phrases, but has no name. 


Gen. xlviii. 8. 


E. 


Israel. 


Vulgate omits; 1 MS. of 
the LXX (f), Jacob. 


Gen. xlviii. 9. 


J. 


he said. 


LXX, Jacob; Old Latin, 
Israel. 



38 



Pentateuchal Studies 



Reference. 


Alleged 
Source. 


Massoretic 

Text. 


Variants. 


Gen. xlviii. 10. 


J. 


Israel. 


3 MSS. of the LXX (d, p, 
t) and Bohairic, Jacob. 


Gen. xlviii. 11. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate omits; 1 MS. of 
the LXX, Jacob. 


Gen. xlviii. 14. 


J. 


Israel. 


Vulgate, he. 


Gen. xlviii. 21. 


E. 


Israel. 


Vulgate omits. 


Gen. xlix. 28. 


R or P. 


Israel. 


3 Heb. MSS. of De Rossi 
and the LXX, Jacob (LXX 
reading children of Jacob 
for tribes of Israel) ; 1 
Heb. MS. of Kennicott's 
omits. 


Gen. 1. 2. 


J. 


And the 
physicians 
embalmed 
Israel. 


Vulgate and some Luci- 
anic MSS. of the LXX 

omit. 



The clue afforded by the Massoretic usage of Jacob and 
Israel in these chapters is clearly as worthless as Astruc's fa- 
mous clue. The fact is that in old Hebrew prose such phrases 
as " and he said " were much commoner than in our existing 
texts. Later, glossators studded the text with explanatory 
notes (" Joseph," " Pharaoh," " his father," " Jacob," " Israel," 
etc.). Sometimes two or three glosses would arise independ- 
ently, as where one and the same person might be referred to 
as " his father," " Jacob," or Israel." It would be easy to 
make similar lists of the omission by various ancient authori- 
ties of other names, did anything depend on them. But as a 
rule such variations — which make no difference whatever to 
the sense — are quite unimportant. It is merely the latitude 
given to the glossators' taste by Jacob's possession of two< names 
that has given unusual interest to their proceedings in this case. 
There is no sufficient reason to suppose that the usage of the 
original text presented any problem, or afforded the slightest 
justification for postulating a plurality of sources, following 
different principles in the naming of the third patriarch. 



VII 



THE ANSWER OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM TO THE 

HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE STORY 

OF JOSEPH (II) 

[From the Bibliotlieca Sacra, April, 1910.] 

There has hitherto been one great fundamental historical 
difficulty in the story of Joseph. Most of the details are in 
themselves highly probable. The local coloring appears to be 
minutely accurate in the light of what is known of ancient 
Egypt. Joseph's sudden rise to power is exactly what might 
be expected at an Oriental court. The incident of the pur- 
chase of the Egyptians and their lands finds world-wide par- 
allels. 1 Famines and successions of good years and bad are in 
themselves too frequent to arouse comment ; but one great his- 
torical improbability remains. Is it likely that a minister of 
Joseph's position would personally serve all who came to buy 
corn? 

The other details of his activity are probable enough. We 
find him at the head of a large office controlling a number of 
store-houses, 2 imprisoning people at pleasure, residing with a 
suite away from the office, and directing the policy of a great 
state department. Would such a man act as salesman to all 
comers? Undoubtedly the Massoretic text represents him as 
so doing. Its other expressions are all susceptible of reason- 
able explanation, but in xlii. 6 it says bluntly: "And Joseph 
was the governor over the land ; he it was that sold to all the 

x In xlvii. 21, for M. T., onjA inN vnyn, "he removed them to 
the cities," the Samaritan and Vulgate have D'HZlsA ins T3JJn, " he 
made them bondmen." The LXX apparently had if> for iriN ; but 
otherwise agrees with the Samaritan. 

1 So read in xli. 56 with some ancient Versions. 

39 



40 Pentateuchal Studies 

people of the land." The difficulty was felt by Jerome, for he 
paraphrases and makes the sales take place by Joseph's direc- 
tion (ad ejus nutiun) . On the other hand, Dr. Carpenter is 
inclined to assign the words "was the governor over the 
land " to R, on the ground that the word rendered " the gov- 
ernor " is late. The larger Cambridge Septuagint gives rea- 
sons for holding that the difficulties that troubled Jerome and 
Dr. Carpenter are alike due to the activity of a commentator. 
One MS. (f) omits the first half of the verse (down to " peo- 
ple of the land ") ; and this is clearly right. 

But does the historical difficulty really vanish with this 
change? Do we not still see Joseph selling to the Egyptians 
and to his brethren? If the narrative be carefully examined 
we shall find the answer. It is no doubt true that we read of 
Joseph's selling to the Egyptians and other similar phrases ; 
but such expressions do not necessarily imply any more than 
that he directed the operations of the department that did these 
things. In the case of his brethren the matter is different ; but 
the sequel makes it reasonably plain that the difficulty merely 
arises from the fact that the narrator's interest is centered on 
the moral and dramatic elements of the story, so that he omits 
details that are irrelevant to his purpose. It is not to be sup- 
posed that the accusation of being spies would have sounded 
arbitrary and unreasonable to Egyptians who were unac- 
quainted with the identity of the strangers who had come to 
buy corn. On the contrary, we must assume that in taking 
this line Joseph was acting as his department would have ex- 
pected him to act. In other words, the charge was made be- 
cause in the eyes of the Egyptians these foreigners were for 
some reason or other suspect. It was probably on this account 
that they were interviewed by Joseph himself. It was not that 
he personally weighed out corn to all comers and received the 



The Story of Joseph 41 

purchase money in exchange, but rather that, if circumstances 
arose that caused suspicion, the matter was brought before the 
head of the department. Whether the mere fact that the 
would-be purchasers were foreigners was the sole ground of 
suspicion in this case it is impossible to tell: that there was 
something about them that stood in need of explanation ap- 
pears to result from the narrative and to provide the solution 
of the difficulty that has been felt. It must be remembered 
that the narrator's motive naturally led to the suppression of 
all details that did not bear directly on the absorbing human 
interest : in reading a story of this kind one must always bear 
in mind the point of view from which it is told. 

The analysis of chapter xlii. has already been answered in 
part. We have seen that the Jacob-Israel clue and the argu- 
ment from Joseph's twofold recognition of his brethren melt 
away under the rays of textual criticism. The same holds good 
of another critical argument. It is claimed that, in J, Joseph 
is described by his brothers as " the man " ; in E, as " the man 
the lord of the land" (xlii. 30, 33). But, in point of fact, in 
verse 30 one MS. of the LXX (n) and the Vulgate omit " the 
man," and in verse 33 the Vulgate reads " and he." In both 
cases the variants appear to be more original than the Masso- 
retic text; so that the argument comes down to the fact that 
in verse 30 Joseph is spoken of as " the lord of the land." If 
the critics choose to base an argument on that, nobody need 
begrudge it to them. 

It is further said that in J " the money is found in the 
mouth of the sacks, when one of them is opened for provender 
on the way xlii 27, 28a, xliii 12, 18, 21, xliv 8," while in E 
" the money is found in the sacks on being emptied when they 
reach Jacob, provision for the way being furnished separately 
xlii 25, 35." (Oxford Hexateuch, vol. ii. p. 66.) 



42 Pentateuchal Studies 

First, as to the location of the money. In the LXX the 
money is found in the mouth of the sack opened on the way 
in xlii. 27, but the word " mouth " is missing in xliii. 12, 18, 
21 : xliv. 8 ; so that its presence in the Hebrew text must be 
attributed to a glossator. Thus the story is that when the 
brothers reached the inn one of them opened his sack to ob- 
tain not provision for the way but provender for his ass. 
There is here no inconsistency. Subsequently, on their arrival 
home, the others found that their money also had been re- 
turned. So far as I can see, the only discrepancy that can be 
charged is that in xliii. 21 the brothers say, " When we came 
to the lodging-place and we opened our sacks and, behold, 
every man's money was in his sack," etc. ; while in fact only 
one of the sacks had been opened there, the others having been 
opened at home. I can only say that, having regard to the 
ordinary colloquial habits of mankind, there is nothing in a 
discrepancy of that kind to justify any suspicion as to the unity 
of the narrative. 

There is one other point that requires notice. The Hebrew 
generally uses for "sack" a word (nnnox, amt achat h) not 
found outside this group of chapters ; but in verses 25, 27a, 
and 35 (twice) we meet with P& (saq) the ordinary word. 
The alternation is very striking, and Dr. Carpenter accord- 
ingly attributes the first word to J and the second to E, saying, 
that in 27a saq " seems due to the compiler." In point of fact 
in 27 the LXX and Aquila both had amtachath, which is, there- 
fore, probably the correct reading. But in verse 35 a Septua- 
gintal MS. reads this word for sack 2°, and in verse 25, so far 
as can be judged from the text of the Vulgate in its present 
condition, Jerome seems to have found the same word. Thus 
here too the Versions do not confirm the critics. The present 
text of the Vulgate is too inconsistent in its translations of the 



The Story of Joseph 43 

two words for any certain inference to be drawn from its 
usage, but we may hope for more light when the revision that 
has now been undertaken is completed. Meanwhile it should 
be noted that the Massoretic text is clearly not a reliable guide 
in this matter. Saq may be due to glossators or the two words 
may have been discriminated to convey different shades of 
meaning ; but, for the present, no certain conclusion is possible. 

The other arguments employed to buttress this part of the 
analysis are unworthy of attention, being merely based on the 
forced analysis itself, and not on anything in the biblical text. 1 

There is nothing further in Mr. Carpenter's commentary on 
the concluding chapters of the story of Joseph that calls for 
detailed notice, but it is desirable to say a few words about 
some of the passages attributed to P. The first of these is 
xlvi. 6 f. In these two verses the following words are doubt- 
ful textually on Septuagintal or Hebrew evidence or both: 
ver. 6, " in the land of Canaan," " Jacob " ; ver. 7, " with him," 
" and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt." Je- 

1 There is Septuagintal authority for suspecting the following 
other phrases in these chapters: xlii. 2: "And he said" (omitted 
by Vulgate) , " and not die " ; ver. 3, " ten " ; ver. 5, the whole verse ; 
ver. 6, "with their faces"; ver. 13, "the sons of one man," "the 
land of " ; ver. 14, " unto them " (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 18, 
" Joseph " (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 22, " and yef would not hear " ; 
ver. 32, "brethren," "this day" (omitted by Vulgate); ver. 33, 
" unto us " ; ver. 34, " unto me," " but that ye are true men " (omit- 
ted by Vulgate) ; ver. 35, "they and their father"; xliii. 3, "say- 
ing" (omitted by Vulgate and two of Kennicott's MSS.) ; ver. 8, 
" that we may live," " and also our little ones " ; ver. 9, " unto 
thee"; ver. 13, "and arise go again" (Vulgate has et ite for the 
whole phrase) ; ver. 14, "other" (omitted by Vulgate), "and Ben- 
jamin"; ver. 15, "that" (omitted by Vulgate), "they took" 2° 
(omitted by Vulgate), "in their hand" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 
17, "the man" 2° (omitted by Vulgate), "Joseph's" (omitted by 
Vulgate) ; ver. 22, "in our hand" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 24, 
"And the man brought the men into Joseph's house" (compare ver. 
16, 17) ; ver. 26, "into the house" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 30, 



44 Pentatenchal Studies 

rome too had a different text, for he renders these verses 
"(tuleruntque eum filii . . . .) et omnia quae possederat in terra 
Chanaan: venitque in Aegyptum cum omni semine suo, filii 
ejus, et nepotes, filiae, et cuncta simul progenies." Then 
comes a passage (ver. 8-27) given to a late priestly writer. 
This is omitted from consideration as not being an integral 
part of the story of Joseph, and we pass to xlvii. -5-11. Here 
there is great uncertainty as to the text, for the LXX omitted 
5 and 6a (down to "dwelt"). The last half of the verse is 
given to J, and therefore does not touch our inquiry; but in 
verse 9 there is ground for omitting everything after " few 
and evil have (they) been." In verse 11 " land of " should 
probably be omitted before " Egypt " ; while " in the land of 
Rameses " is of doubtful authenticity. But once all these 
phrases are removed, as they perfectly well can be without in- 
jury to the sense, what evidence is there that these verses 
should be attributed to P? The same argument applies to 
xlvii. 27b, 28, where " and were fruitful," "land of," "the 
years of his life," are all doubtful. In chapter xlix. there is 

"there" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 34, "And they drank and were 
merry with him." On the other hand, in verse 28 the LXX and the 
Samaritan add "And he said, Blessed be that man of God," after 
" alive." In chapter xliv. the following omissions may be noted : 
ver. 11, " and opened every man his sack " ; ver. 14, " house " (omit- 
ted by Vulgate), "and he was yet there"; ver. 23, "youngest"; 
ver. 26, " We cannot go down " ; ver. 27, " unto us." In chapter 
xlv. the following may be noted: ver. 3, "at his presence" (omit- 
ted by Vulgate) ; ver. 5, "hither"; ver. 7, "in the earth" (there is 
some evidence for omitting " to preserve you a remnant " and some 
other evidence for omitting " to save you alive by a great deliver- 
ance." The Vulgate omits " by a great deliverance." Apparently 
the present Hebrew text is conflate) ; ver. 12, "my brother"; ver. 
16, "saying" (omitted by Vulgate); ver. 19, "this do ye" (omit- 
ted by Vulgate) ; ver. 22, " each man " ; ver. 23, " corn and," " and 
victuals" (omitted by Vulgate) ; ver. 27, "which he had said unto 
them " ; ver. 28, " Joseph." 



The Story of Joseph 45 

evidence for omitting "And he charged them," " unto them " 
(both ver. 29) ; " that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, in 
the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which " (ver. 29- 
30) ; " with the field from Ephron the Hittite " (ver. 30) ; " his 
wife " 1° (ver. 31) ; while verse 32 is entirely omitted by the 
Vulgate. Similarly, in 1. 13, " with the field. . . . Mamre " is 
a glossator's addition. 

I now return to chapter xxxvii. I have left it till the last 
because it contains a difficulty requiring somewhat delicate 
textual operations. 

It is supposed by the critics that in J's story Judah was 
prominent, while in E's version his part was played by Reu- 
ben. Accordingly verses 21 f. are divided. The earlier verse 
is assigned to J — " Reuben " being declared to be an altera- 
tion of the original text — and the later to E. The textual 
evidence disposes of this, for the Vulgate, supported by one 
of Kennicott's Hebrew MSS., omits "And Reuben said unto 
them" (ver. 22). It also reads the second person plural for 
the first in verse 21 (" Do not take his life "). It is clear that 
in point of fact the attitudes of Reuben and Judah were quite 
different. Reuben wished to save Joseph, Judah to make 
money out of him instead of killing him. There is no hint 
that the latter was actuated by any nobler sentiment. More- 
over the sequel points in this direction. The language of Reu- 
ben in xlii. 22 ("his blood is required"), interpreted natur- 
ally, means that he thought his brothers had been responsible 
not for selling but for killing Joseph. 1 

The real difficulty lies elsewhere. While it is clear from 

*It is certainly true that in chapter xlii. Reuben pleads unsuc- 
cessfully with his father, while in chapter xliii. Judah manages to 
persuade him at a later date; but there is not the slightest discrep- 
ancy in all this. Reuben's previous conduct had been such as to 
rob him of all influence with Jacob (xxxv. 22). 



46 Pentateuchal Studies 

xxxvii. 25-27, 28b, and xxxix. 1 that Joseph was sold to Ish- 
maelites, we read of Midianites in xxxvii. 28a and 36. The 
critics of course postulate two stories ; and they go further, 
and say that in E Joseph was kidnapped, while in J he was 
sold. No doubt in xl. 15 Joseph speaks of having been stolen 
from the land of the Hebrews, while in xlv. 4 he uses the ex- 
pression " sold " ; but in point of fact both passages are en- 
tirely accurate, as he had in fact been both kidnapped and sold 
by his brothers. 

The difficulty is therefore really narrowed down to the ques- 
tion of the Midianites in xxxvii. 28 and 36. 

To facilitate the comprehension of a somewhat technical 
discussion I begin by setting out in Hebrew and English the 
present Massoretic text, with what appears to be the true text 
underneath. For the benefit of those who are unacquainted 
with Hebrew, the translation follows the order of the Hebrew 
words, hyphens connect the English words corresponding to 
a single Hebrew equivalent, and bars are used to show the 
divisions into words. 3 

Vebse 28. 
Merchants Midianites Men English rendering of M. T. 

DnnD | B * J 0) 1 » | ID 0) BM N | Massoretic Text 

ID ? b NI? O B>- Vn Emended Text 

the-Ishmaelites English rendering of E. T. 

Verse 36. 

And-the-Midianites English rendering of M. T. 

tj "• 3 "1 tj n 1 Massoretic Text 

D * "1 n D H 1 Emended Text 

And-the-merchants English rendering of E. T. 

What are the facts and the reasons by which these changes 
can be supported? 

In verse 28, two of Kennicott's Hebrew MSS. read 
1 It must be remembered that in Hebrew MSS. words were not 
always divided, so that in an inquiry of this kind we must look be- 
yond the divisions. 



The Story of Joseph 47 , 

" Mdnm " for " Mdynm " (Midianites). This is indicated 
above by placing the * in parentheses. When the vowels are 
added, this word becomes Medanites, an expression that oc- 
curs again in verse 36, but is otherwise quite unknown. In the 
latter passage it is generally regarded as a corruption from 
"Mdynm" (Midianites). This exhausts the Hebrezv evi- 
dence, but it must be remembered that considerable latitude 
was exercised in old MSS. with regard to certain letters called 
the matres lectionis; and accordingly in verse 28 we are free 
to neglect the 1 of the word for " men," and this also is shown 
by parentheses. 

After what we have seen of the habits of glossators, " men, 
Md(y)nm, merchants," appears to be a description that in its 
present condition is more likely to be due to a commentator's 
activity than to the original writer. At this point the Ver- 
sional evidence comes to the rescue. The readings of most of 
the Septuagintal authorities afford no assistance, but E and 
the Ethiopic read " the Ishmaelites " for the whole phrase. At 
first sight this looks like a correction or a gloss to avoid the 
difficulty of the original : closer scrutiny shows that that is not 
the case. A glossator does not diminish the number of the 
words of the original. On the contrary he adds to them. This 
text presents nothing corresponding to the " merchants " of 
the Massoretic text and we had already seen reason to suppose 
that the Massoretic text was too full. Again, it has the single 
word "the Ishmaelites" for the two "men, Md(y)nites." If 
it be compared letter for letter with the Massoretic text, it ap- 
pears that the numbers of the letters exactly correspond (al- 
lowing for the features noted above), and that in the middle 
of both phrases we get »&♦. For these reasons it is fair to 
suppose that " the Ishmaelites " is the original reading. Five 
letters having become illegible, the text " men Mdnm " arose ; 



48 Pentateuchal Studies 

and in explanation of this unintelligible phrase a glossator in- 
terpolated a note " merchants," taken from the then text of 
verse 36, conjecturing that " Mdnm " must be some out-of-the- 
way word for " merchants." 

With regard to verse 36 the case stands thus: There is a 
Hexaplar note in Field that the LXX had " Midianites," while 
other copies had " Ishmaelite merchants " ; and this reading is 
supported by d and p. " Midianites " does not represent a va- 
riant to our Massoretic text ; but the alternative reading clearly 
does. In view of the great activity of glossators it is more 
probable that this reading is itself conflate than that a long 
word like " Ishmaelites " should have entirely fallen out of the 
Hebrew text and the other authorities. By a very easy corrup- 
tion of three letters of " merchants " (assuming the word to be 
original), we could get the " Mdnm" of the Massoretic text. 
The process would be aided by the prior corruption of verse 
28. This reading, too, would explain the gloss " merchants " 
in the earlier verse. Lastly, a memory of it seems to have sur- 
vived in the reading of another Septuagintal MS. (t), which 
has " the Midianite merchants." For all these reasons the 
readings suggested above appear to fulfil most exactly the 
conditions of the problem, and to explain all the available data ; 
and it is submitted that they should be adopted. With their 
adoption the last and most formidable difficulties of this nar- 
rative entirely disappear. 



VIII 
THE SWANSONG OF THE WELLHAUSEN SCHOOL 

[From the BiUiotheca Sacra, October, 1910.] 

The International Critical Commentary is making slow 
progress towards completion. Two new volumes have re- 
cently appeared, dealing with Genesis and Chronicles respect- 
ively. When it is remembered that the first instalment of the 
Commentary was published as long ago as 1895, that not half 
the books of the Old Testament have hitherto been treated in 
the series, and that in the advertisement at the end of Genesis 
no announcement is yet made of any engagement for a com- 
mentary on the book of Job, it will be felt that those responsi- 
ble for the enterprise may justly be blamed for a tardiness 
that must impair the value of the publication as a whole. Our 
business, however, in this article is with a volume that has 
appeared — the long-expected commentary on Genesis. Its 
full title is "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Gene- 
sis " — a grave misnomer as will presently appear — and its 
author is the Reverend Principal John Skinner, D.D. 

Regarded as a whole, the book is mainly a great and labor- 
ious collection of the guesses of a particular school of biblical 
students, made by a writer who has some literary feeling and 
is not devoid of humor, but entirely lacks originality and crit- 
ical power, has no acquaintance with the methods of scientific 
textual criticism and not the vaguest idea of what independent 
research means. The British theological schools have unhap- 
pily been reduced to the level of an intellectual satrapy of the 



50 Pentateuchal Studies 

German Empire, and those who lead them have never been 
taught to think for themselves. Thus all that Dr. Skinner can 
do is to collect the views of various German writers and to 
express his preference for one or another, occasionally sug- 
gesting some trifling modifications. 

And yet he had an opportunity such as has never before 
fallen to any commentator on Genesis — for this is the first 
bulky new commentary on that book that has been published 
since the appearance of the larger Cambridge Septuagint — 
and Dr. Skinner had the chance of doing pioneer work on the 
text which might have given him lasting fame among biblical 
students, had he been equal to his undertaking. But that was 
not to be. He has indeed heard of the Cambridge LXX, and 
there are occasional references to it (e.g. pp. iii, 100, 261), 
while there are a few passages where, though it is not ex- 
pressly mentioned, a presumption arises that it has been con- 
sulted (e.g. pp. 513, 532) • but such cases are very few and 
far between. Generally speaking, it may be said that the 
larger Septuagint is of scarcely more use to Dr. Skinner than 
Dr. Swete's edition would be, and that he has made no effort 
to utilize the rich new materials that it offers to the true critic. 
It is in keeping with this that the Introduction contains no 
section on the text of the book — no general estimate of the 
textual materials and their value as a whole. Indeed, the Ver- 
sions appear to have been used by Dr. Skinner principally for 
the purpose of interpretation rather than of textual criticism. 
This is of course perfectly legitimate — but then why call the 
book a critical commentary? 

Before passing from this, another strange feature must be 
noticed. Dr. Skinner chronicles versional differences more or 
less sporadically, for no obvious reason, in a manner that is 
highly perplexing, To take an instance at random : on page 



The Szvansong of the Wellhausen School 51 

157, we read, in the small-print note on viii. 20, that the Greek 
has God where the Hebrew has the Tetragrammaton. What 
is the object of this remark? That Dr. Skinner does not re- 
gard this as the true reading will appear hereafter. It will 
also be seen that he does not make the slightest attempt to 
record all divergences of the kind. On what principle, then, 
is his florilegium of unrecommended variants based? Why 
is there no explanation of the use to which he thinks they 
should be put? For myself, having read the book from cover 
to cover (except the indices, etc.), I am unable to understand 
the utility of the notes of this type from any conceivable point 
of view. They are not readings that Dr. Skinner approves 
himself or quotes others as recommending. They might very 
easily mislead his readers into supposing that his apparatus 
criticus was exhaustive — though in point of fact it is ludi- 
crously inadequate. What was his object in setting out these 
facts without giving any clue to the limitations he had set him- 
self or the purpose he had in view? 

I wish that the above criticism represented the worst that 
could be said of the book. If it were impossible to give Dr. 
Skinner any very high praise, it might yet be said that he had 
produced a pleasant presentation of a number of improbable 
guesses, combined with some useful facts, and the volume, 
though possessing no independent value, might form a passa- 
ble addition to the existing expositions of Genesis. Unfortu- 
nately there are other and even less pleasing features, which 
justify the title I have given this article. 

I turn first to Dr. Skinner's treatment of Astruc's clue — 
the use of El o him and the Tetragrammaton in the book of 
Genesis. The discussion will be found in section 7 of the In- 
troduction (pp. xxxivff.). After stating Astruc's supposed 
discovery, Dr. Skinner proceeds as follows: — 



52 Pentatcuchal Studies 

" While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc's discovery took 
the direction of showing that the use of the two divine names is 
determined by a difference of meaning which made the one or the 
other more suitable in a particular connection, the more recent op- 
position entrenches itself mostly behind the uncertainties of the 
text, and maintains that the Versions (especially LXX) show the 
Massoretic Text to be so unreliable that no analysis of documents 
can be based on its data: see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch (1893), 
p. 20 ff . ; Dahse, Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft vi. (1903), 305 ff. ; 
Redpath, American Journal of Theology, viii. (1904), 286 ff.; Eerd- 
mans, Comp'. d. Gen. (1908), 34 ff . ; Wiener, Bioliotheca Sacra 
(1909), 119 ff. It cannot be denied that the facts adduced by these 
writers import an element of uncertainty into the analysis, so far 
as it depends on the criterion of the divine names; but the signifi- 
cance of the facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories 
propounded to account for the textual phenomena are improbable 
in the extreme" (p. xxxv). 

I pause at this point to draw attention to the admission that 
the facts adduced import an element of uncertainty into the 
analysis, so far as it depends on this criterion. In spite of this 
admission, Dr. Skinner proceeds throughout his book on the 
view that the ordinary analysis is substantially sound, and 
makes no attempt to determine the modifications of the theory 
necessitated by the new facts or the limits of the uncertainty 
they have imported. To proceed with his arguments : — 

" So far as I have observed, no attention is paid to what is surely 
a very important factor of the problem, the proportion of diver- 
gences to agreements as between LXX and Massoretic Text. In 
Genesis the divine name occurs in one or other form about 340 
times (in Massoretic Text, mrv 143 t + D"»rr?K 177 t. -f 'tf '■ 20 t). 
The total deviations registered by Redpath (296 ff.) number 50; 
according to Eerdmans (34f.) they are 49, i.e little more thaa 
one-seventh of the whole. Is it so certain that that degree of 
divergence invalidates a documentary analysis founded on so much 
larger a field of undisputed readings?" 

This is a very much graver feature. In the Expository 
Times for May, 1909, the Rev. A. P. Cox asked certain ques- 
tions (of which more hereafter), and Dr. Skinner attempted 
to deal with them. He then wrote (p. 378), " in Genesis the 



The Swansong of the Wellhauscn School 53 

Samaritan version differs from the Jewish in (I think) eight 
cases, and the LXX in 49 — about one-sixth of the whole. 
The other versions do not count for much, being all more or 
less influenced by the LXX, except Aquila and the Targums," 
etc. I answered this in the July number of the same paper, 
and I wrote (p. 474) : " Dr. Skinner says that the LXX dif- 
fers from M.T. in forty-nine cases. But in an enormous num- 
ber of passages some Septuagintal authority, e.g. Lucian in 
Gen. xvi. 11 — sometimes only a single cursive — differs from 
the ordinary LXX reading. By comparing extant Hebrew 
variants which confirm some of the Septuagintal variants, I 
have shown that importance attaches to these. Has Dr. Skin- 
ner included all such cases in his forty-nine?" To this no 
answer was made, but in the September number of the same 
paper Professor Schlogl, in an independent reply to Dr. Skin- 
ner's May discussion, registers the following figures for Gene- 
sis i. 1-Exodus iii. 12 : The Tetragrammaton alone occurs 
148 times in the Massoretic text. In 118 places the other 
texts have Elohim or both appellations, so that there is unan- 
imous evidence for the use of the Tetragrammaton in only 30 
passages. According to Dr. Skinner, 143 of these 148 occur- 
rences are in Genesis, with which alone he is concerned. As- 
suming in his favor that all the 30 undisputed instances occur 
in that book, the proportion of undisputed to disputed read- 
ings is 30 to 113. 

Next, Elohim alone occurs 179 times in the M.T. of the sec- 
tion examined by Dr. Schlogl. Only in 59 passages have the 
other texts the Tetragrammaton (both appellations in 47). 
According to Dr. Skinner, Elohim occurs 177 times in Gene- 
sis ; so at the best there are 120 undisputed readings here 
against 57. 



54 Pentateuchal Studies 

Lastly, the two appellations occur together 20 times in the 
M.T. of Genesis. There are variants in 19 out of these 20 in- 
stances. 

That these facts shatter Dr. Skinner's reasoning cannot be 
denied. There are, however, other matters that need explana- 
tion. It appears that while the larger number of divergences 
quoted by Dr. Skinner is 50, the total mentioned in a contro- 
versy to which he was himself a party was no less than 189 
(in Genesis alone). 

The date of the issue of the Expository Times containing 
Dr. Schlogl's note — to which no reply of any kind has been 
made — is September, 1909. The date of Dr. Skinner's pref- 
ace is April, 1910. Yet in the latter he permits himself to 
write: "At all events, my own belief in the essential sound- 
ness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed by the 
renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present 
undertaking required." Now the date of the preface is prob- 
ably not the date of the introduction, which was presumably 
in type earlier: yet that introduction itself contains a refer- 
ence to so recent a book as the " Cambridge Biblical Essays " 
(see p. xviii), and the Commentary even refers to the Expos- 
itory Times for November, 1909 (p. 292), i.e. to a number that 
appeared two months after Dr. Schlogl's note. But that is not 
all. In the Bibliotheca Sacra article to which Dr. Skinner 
refers in this discussion, I had registered a number of diver- 
gences other than those mentioned by Redpath and Eerdmans, 
and Dr. Skinner's attention had been publicly called to this 
fact in the Expository Times for July, 1909. Further, while 
Dr. Skinner refers only to the numbers registered by these two 
writers who dealt with the Septuagint alone, he had himself 
recorded the fact on page 378 of the Expository Times for 
May, 1909, that the Samaritan differs from the Massoretic 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 55 

text in 8 cases, and on page 330 of his commentary he regis- 
ters two Syriac divergences (Gen. xxii. 11 and 15), and 
actually adopts the Syriac reading in the former of those 
verses. I shall return to this matter presently. At this stage 
I ask: — 

1. Why did Dr. Skinner mention only the number of devia- 
tions registered by Redpath and Eerdmans when to his knowl- 
edge there were others, and when his attention had been 
publicly called to this fact? 

2. Why did Dr. Skinner put forward an argument based 
on that degree of divergence when he well knew that he had 
not stated the full facts? 

I proceed with his discussion. He continues : — 
" In spite of the confident assertions of Dahse (309) and Wiener 
(131 f.) there is not a single instance in which LXX is 'demonstra- 
bly' right against Massoretic Text. It is readily conceded that it is 
probably right in a few cases, but there are two general presumptions 
in favour of superior fidelity of the Massoretic tradition. Not only 
(a) is the chance of purely clerical confusion between 7s and el 
greater than between mrp and D^N, or even between ■*» and 
K', and (&) a change of divine names more apt to occur in trans- 
lation than in transcription, but (c) the distinction between a 
proper name rn,T and a generic dt6k is much less likely to 
have been overlooked in copying than that between two appel- 
lations Kvpios and 0e6s. An instructive example is iv 26, where 
LXX Kijpios 6 de6i is ' demonstrably ' wrong " ( loc. cit. ) . 

Dr. Skinner's statement that " there is not a single instance 
in which LXX is ' demonstrably ' right against Massoretic 
Text " would have had more weight if he had attempted to 
meet the facts and arguments that have been advanced. Thus 
he makes no effort whatever to deal with xvi. 11. Moreover, 
it is worth noting that he himself rejects the Massoretic 
text in favor of Versional readings when it suits him. On page 
402 he writes of xxxi. 50, that the LXX Elohim must be 
adopted if the verse is rightly ascribed to E, and, as already 



56 Pentateuchal Studies 

indicated, he adopts Elohim from a Syriac reading elsewhere ; 
but other points in this discussion are of even more import- 
ance. In the Expository Times for May, 1909, the Rev. A. P. 
Cox drew attention to the fact that, in the Bibliotheca Sacra 
article to which Dr. Skinner is here replying, I had produced 
evidence to show that the versional variants rest on divergent 
Hebrew texts, and are not due to avoidance of the Tetragram- 
maton by the translators. Dr. Skinner evaded the point in his 
Expository Times reply, and accordingly in the July number 
of that paper, I drew attention to Genesis xvi. 11, where Sep- 
tuagintal authorities are supported by a Hebrew MS., and 
continued : — 

"Dr. Skinner says it is reasonable to expect that Jewish scribes 
would be more careful in this matter than Greek copyists. But 
this instance shows that the variant is a Hebrew variant, for the 
mistakes of Greek copyists could not possibly influence a Hebrew 
MS. I therefore submit that little reliance can be placed on this 
argument. For numerous other examples see pp. 128-130, 150 ff.; 1 
and for a further body of evidence drawn from the support of other 
Versions, see pp. 130 f. a Once the fact that the Greek rests on He- 
brew variants has been established in a number of cases, a presump- 
tion arises that it does so in other cases where no independent 
testimony is preserved; and a case is made for further investiga- 
tion." 

In view of all this, I ask : — 

3. Why has Dr. Skinner entirely ignored the Hebrew vari- 
ants and argued on the basis of causes purely internal to Greek 
MSS., although his attention had twice been publicly drawn to 
the fact that, in a number of passages, Greek variants are con- 
firmed by Hebrew texts? His statement that in iv. 26 the 
Greek reading is demonstrably wrong leaves me unmoved, for 

1 I.e. of the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1909 = Essays in Pen- 
tateuchal Criticism, pp. 14 f., 36 f. 
s Op. cit., pp. 15 ff. 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 57 

I had written of the LXX, " It has also in a number of cases 
preserved readings that are demonstrably inferior." ■ 

Dr. Skinner next says that " in the present state of textual 
criticism it is impossible to determine in particular cases what 
is the original reading." This, again, would have had more 
weight if he had shown any signs of attempting to deal with 
the arguments of his opponents. That it is impossible in a 
very large number of cases is merely to repeat what I have 
already written in the article that has been cited so often ; but 
solid reasons have been advanced for preferring Septuagintal 
readings in certain specified passages, and Dr. Skinner has 
made no attempt whatever to grapple with these. 2 

He then proceeds to argue on the basis of averages; but 
here his figures are hopelessly wrong. Thus he says that there 
are only 4 cases of /cvpios and 6 of /cvpios 6 6e6s for dt6k 
(10 in all). This figure 10 is now replaced by Dr. Schlogl's 
59. It is, however, remarkable that Dr. Skinner, after some 
further discussion, writes : " There is force, however, in 
Gray's remark on a particular case (Num. p. 311), that 
' wherever [o] /e? appears in LXX it deserves attention as a 
possible indication of the original text.' " Why, if that be so, 
did not Dr. Skinner devote attention to those cases in Genesis 
in which, to his knowledge, the Septuagint read /cvpLos (e.g. 
Gen. xlviii. 15) ? The omission is the more curious because on 

1 Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1909, pp. 133 f . = Essays in Penta- 
teuchal Criticism, p. 19. 

2 In noticing an article of mine in the Biblische Zeitschrift, Pro- 
fessor Gottsberger drew attention to three articles by the late 
Professor Vetter in the Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. lxxxv. 
(1903) pp. 12-47, 202-235, 520-547. I have now inspected these 
articles, and while I am of opinion that they contain some valua- 
ble hints, I think that certain general criticisms may be made on 
Professor Vetter's work: (1) He made no attempt to bring the 
evidence of extant Hebrew variants into consideration. Yet these 
form a very important element in weighing the value of the Sep- 



58 Pentateuchal Studies 

this verse he quotes with approval Gunkel's note " in such 
cases the polytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient 
monotheist all the names and attributes of the God he knows." 
If this be true, does it add nothing to the significance of B's 
variation ? And was it no part of the duty of a " critical " 
commentator to take cognizance of such points? 

Dr. Skinner next writes : " The documentary theory fur- 
nishes a better explanation of the alternation of the names than 
any other that has been propounded." He proceeds to argue 
against certain hypotheses of Redpath and Dahse with which 
I am not in agreement. Of the documentary hypothesis in 
general, I shall speak later. For the present, I wish to see 
how far it provides an explanation of the phenomena. On 
page xlix of the introduction, rules are laid down to account 
for J's using Elohim in certain instances. But the Commen- 
tary contains many admissions that are extremely damaging to 
the hypothesis. Thus, on page 2, we find a conjecture that 
there were two recensions of J's Paradise story in Genesis ii. 
and iii., marked respectively by Elohim and the Tetragram- 
maton, characterized as " plausible " ; on page 74, Dr. Skinner 
is driven to admit of one of his artificial explanations of J's 

tuagintal readings. (2) He treated the text of Dr. Swete's edition 
(i.e. the text of the best MS. available for any particular passage) 
as the text of the Septuagint. This procedure would not be de- 
fended to-day by any responsible authority. (3) He made no at- 
tempt to weigh considerations for or against particular readings in 
given passages. Such considerations may have a vital bearing on 
the larger question involved. (4) He did not compare the evidence 
of the different authorities in particular cases, but treated each by 
itself in separate compartments. (5) He started with a belief in 
the antiquity and correctness of the Massoretic text that cannot 
now be maintained. I am glad to have this opportunity of drawing 
attention to the care and thoroughness with which Professor Gotts- 
berger performs the task of Old Testament bibliographer in the 
Biblische Zeitschrift. 



The Szvansong of the W ellhausen School 59 

avoidance of the Tetragrammaton, that " J's usage in such 
cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true ex- 
planation here " ; page 125, after a reference to the preserva- 
tion of iv. 25 f ., brings us the following curious admission : 
" The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching 
critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbi- 
trary decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite gene- 
alogy in J would hardly have been suspected; and the whole 
analysis of the J document into its component strata might 
have run a different course." On page 154, in the small-print 
note, vii. 8 and 9 are said to " present a mixed text," because, 
while the " distinction of clean and unclean points to J," " all 
other features (Elohim) " etc., point to P, in which document, 
however, " the verses are not wanted." On page 155, we read 
of viii. lb, that " but for the name DwK the half-verse might 
very well be assigned to J." On page 182, a passage (ix. 
20-27) is given to J " in spite of DT^a in verse 27." On 
page 289, the Tetragrammaton in xvii. 1 is declared to be 
" either a redactional change or a scribal error." On page 
320, the Tetragrammaton of xxi. lb is " a scribal error." On 
page 328, xxii. 11, 14, go to E " in spite of " the Massoretic 
Tetragrammaton. On page 379, the Tetragrammaton in 
xxviii. 21b "shows that it does not belong to E; and in all 
probability the clause is to be omitted as a gloss. The apodo- 
sis then has the same unusual form as in xxii 1." On page 
402, Elohim (of the LXX) " must be adopted if the verse 
[xxxi. 50] is rightly ascribed to E." On page 412, we learn 
that xxxiii. 1-17 " are rightly assigned in the main to J, in 
spite of the fact that the only divine name which occurs is 
D^rtpK in 5b, 10, 11." Yet " in these verses we must recognise 
the hand of E ; and, for all that appears, E's influence may ex- 
tend further." Finally, on page 439, Dr. Skinner practically 



60 Pentateuchal Studies 

throws up the sponge in dealing with the Joseph story. The 
Tetragrammaton, we learn, " occurs only in chapter xxxix 
(7 times) ; elsewhere Q^'TW is invariably used, sometimes in 
contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to J, 
though no reason appears why J should depart from his or- 
dinary usage (e.g. xlii 28). It may not always be safe to rely 
on this characteristic when it is not supported by other indica- 
tions " ! So, in eleven chapters out of the fifty, " no reason 
appears " why the famous explanation is not explanatory, and 
in the remainder it is perpetually breaking down. 

Dr. Skinner's last point in this connection is stated as fol- 
lows : — 

"Nevertheless the opinion can be maintained that the Massoretic 
Text is far superior to the Versions, and that its use of the names 
is a valuable clue to the separation of documents. Truth is some- 
times stranger than fiction; and, however surprising it may appear 
to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the Masso- 
retic Text does reproduce with substantial accuracy the character- 
istics of the original autographs. At present that assumption can 
only be tested by the success or failure of the analysis based on it " 
(pp. xxxvif.). 

That test will be applied in some measure hereafter : for the 
moment I wish to point to one matter that appears to me very 
significant. Time after time it happens that perplexing phe- 
nomena of the Massoretic text can be explained with supreme 
ease by the natural processes of textual corruption, and the 
Versions in very many cases come to the rescue. To this must 
be added the fact that the translation of the Septuagint is 
much older than the earliest known Hebrew MS. It is by no 
means certain that the ultimate judgment of specialists will 
favor the Massoretic Pentateuch against the Septuagintal. 
On the contrary, recent investigations lead me to incline to the 
opinion that in the long run the latter may be shown to have 
a general superiority. What is certain, both from the Ver- 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 61 

sions and extant Hebrew variants, is that the Massoretic text 
is merely one recension out of many that were current at one 
time or another. It should be added that Professor Toy has 
recently abandoned Astruc's clue. He writes as follows of my 
contention as to the textual evidence : " While this point calls 
for a more thorough examination than has yet been given it, 
the conclusion just stated is not out of keeping with the tone 
of modern criticism. As is well known, critics generally hold 
that our Hebrew text has suffered greatly from scribes and 
editors in the process of transmission. It is agreed that di- 
vine names have been changed in Chronicles, Psalms, and 
elsewhere. Why not in the Pentateuch ?" x 

To avoid all possibilities of misconception, I now repeat the 
three questions to which it is most essential that Dr. Skinner 
should supply answers : — 

1. Why did Dr. Skinner mention only the number of de- 
viations registered by Redpath and Eerdmans when to his 
knowledge there were others, and when his attention had been 
publicly called to this fact? 

2. Why did Dr. Skinner put forward an argument based on 
that degree of divergence when he well knew that he had not 
stated the full facts ? 

3. Why has Dr. Skinner entirely ignored the Hebrew vari- 
ants and argued on the basis of causes purely internal to Greek 
MSS., although his attention had twice been publicly drawn 
to the fact that in a number of passages Greek variants are 
confirmed by Hebrew texts? 

Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is ob- 
vious that the documentary theory is mortally wounded when 
its exponents do not meet the facts and arguments publicly 
advanced against them. The theory may stagger on for a 
1 The Christian Register, April 28, 1910. 



6.2 Pentateitchal Studies 

while, owing to the momentum it has already gained. Such 
books as Dr. Skinner's may serve to delay the recognition of 
the truth in certain circles. More than that they cannot do 
for not merely is truth sometimes stranger than fiction : in the 
long- run it is always stronger. Magna est Veritas, et prae- 
valebit. 

In treating of Dr. Skinner's presentation of the documen- 
tary theory, I shall confine myself to the main Genesis phenom- 
ena, although much of his case rests on other considerations. 
My reason is that most of these have already been dealt with 
in other publications. For example, anybody who has read 
the sixth chapter of " Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism " 
(which appeared in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1909) 
will greet with hilarity this sentence of Dr. Skinner's : " It 
is particularly noteworthy that the profane, as distinct from 
the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which even the Deuter- 
onomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back to the 
covenant with Noah" (p. lx). The real pillars of the hy- 
pothesis have already been destroyed. It is the documentary 
theory in the book of Genesis that we have to consider. Of 
this, Dr. Skinner writes in his preface : — 

" It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain 
which is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts 
from cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontroverti- 
ble, and moves on to others where it is less certain ; and it is surely 
evident that when the composition of sources is once established, 
the slightest differences of representation or language assume a 
significance which they might not have apart from that presump- 
tion " (pp. viiif.). 

That is an excellent statement of certain higher critical fal- 
lacies : and I must try and point them out as clearly as I can. 

1. The statement that "the analytic process is a chain" 
begs the question. Quite apart from the objection to the meta- 






The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 63 

phor — and I shall endeavor to suggest a happier one here- 
after — there is a very strong objection indeed to the main 
idea. It does not follow from an analysis of the first three 
chapters of Genesis, that an attempt should be made to dissect 
the last eleven. There may be two or more creation stories 
and only one Joseph story. How many creation stories and 
how many Joseph stories there are constitute questions which 
it may or may not be possible to answer after investigation ; 
but the number is not necessarily or even probably the same 
in the two cases. 

2. The fact that there are cases in Genesis where " diversity 
of authorship is almost incontrovertible " does substantially 
nothing to help the documentary theory, for it is not to be sup- 
posed that the author of the Pentateuch was guilty of free 
invention for the whole pre-Mosaic period. Let me take a 
concrete instance. (It is one that I hav£ quoted before in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra, and that Dr. Skinner has not ventured to 
tackle, although it occurred in the article to which he refers, 
and although I carefully confronted him with it in the Expos- 
itory Times for July, 1909.) In x. 19 we read the words "As 
thou comest to Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim." 
Such language could have originated only when the places 
named were in existence. They were destroyed in the time 
of Abraham. The verse cannot therefore be later than that 
period. Dr. Skinner assigns it to J, who " will hardly be 
earlier than the 9th" century (p. liv). That is to say, that 
Dr. Skinner is probably about eleven hundred years out. It is 
" almost incontrovertible " that this verse is not by any writer 
who could narrate, say, the Joseph story: for it could have 
originated only before the birth of Joseph. Now what has 
happened in this case? First, the documentary theorists have 
grouped it with a number of other passages which must be 



64 Pentatenchal Studies 

from later hands. Secondly, they have dated it eleven hun- 
dred years too late. Thirdly, they have treated later compo- 
sitions (e.g. the song- of Deborah, which cannot have been 
written before the events to which it relates) as being earlier 
than this very ancient passage. Why have they done these 
things? Because they held that the analytic process was a 
chain, and that consequently a number of continuous docu- 
ments could be recovered mainly on the basis of the Divine 
appellations. Here then an " almost incontrovertible " " di- 
versity of authorship " hoists the critics with their own petard. 
But, once it is proved that compositions long precedent to the 
time of Moses are included in Genesis, no presumption in fa- 
vor of a documentary theory such as that supported by Dr. 
Skinner arises. There might have been two or two hundred 
creation stories in circulation before the days of Moses, but 
this proves nothing. There is no evidence whatever of a late 
origin of the creation stories. In ii. 14 we perhaps read of 
the Tigris as flowing " east of Ashur." Professor Gressmann 
has pointed out that this was only true before 1300 B.C., for 
about that date the ancient capital of Assyria on the right 
(west) bank of the Tigris was replaced by Kalchi, on the 
left (east). 1 If, therefore, the translation " east " be correct, 
this passage also must be pre-Mosaic, since after 1300 B.C. 
the Tigris was on the west of Ashur. In point of fact, there 
is legal evidence to the same effect; for, as will presently be 
seen, the law of murder in the case of Cain is shown by the 
comparative evidence to be very early. I shall return to the 
question of dating hereafter. 

3. It follows, from what has been said, that it is no suf- 
ficient justification of the higher critical procedure to say that 
the analytic process " moves on " to cases where diversity of 
1 Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, vol. x. (1907) p. 347. 



The Szvansong of the W ellhausen School 65 

authorship is " less certain." The critical theory should rather 
be likened to a string of beads. If the string be snapped in 
not more than one hundred and eighty-nine places the beads 
will fall. Many of them may be lost or destroyed : some may 
be strung together with other beads on a fresh thread, and 
formed into a gewgaw of entirely different pattern, purpose, 
and appearance from the original string. 

4. " It is surely evident that when the composition of 
sources is once established, the slightest differences of repre- 
sentation or language assume a significance which they might 
not have apart from that presumption." The chief part of 
this sentence has been answered in the foregoing paragraphs. 
It is, however, necessary to point out that the fallacies already 
exposed are here admitted to import into " the slightest dif- 
ferences of representation " a " significance which they might 
not have apart from that presumption." In other words the 
significance goes by the board with the presumption. 

It is at this point that Dr. Skinner's claim as to the success 
of his analysis (omitted from the preceding discussion of the 
Divine appellations) should be quoted. 

"One has but to read consecutively the first three chapters of 
Genesis, and observe how the sudden change in the divine name 
coincides with a new vocabulary, representation, and spiritual at- 
mosphere, in order to feel how paltry all such artificial explana- 
tions are in comparison with the hypothesis that the names are 
distinctive of different documents. The experience repeats itself, 
not perhaps quite so convincingly, again and again throughout the 
book ; and though there are cases where the change of manner is 
not obvious, still the theory is vindicated in a sufficient number of 
instances to be worth carrying through, even at the expense of a 
somewhat complicated analysis, and a very few demands on the 
services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems" (p. xxxvi). 

It is possible to test this theory in many different ways. 

(1) The involuntary admissions of Dr. Skinner himself may 

be quoted. (2) His clues may be taken singly and it may be 



66 Pentateuchal Studies 

shown how he has to abandon them one after another and 
introduce the wildest hypotheses in order to get through at 
all. (3) The narrative may be examined to see whether the 
theory is probable or tears asunder what cannot be separated. 
(4) The evidence of the Versions which so often show the 
true origin of the phenomena sought to be explained by the 
documentary theory may be adduced with the result that pas- 
sages supposed to belong to the earliest sources are seen to 
be the additions of late glossators and the unglossed text ap- 
pears to be unitary. (5) The historical and comparative evi- 
dence which demolishes the theory may be adduced. 

Other tests could be suggested: but this is an article, not a 
treatise, and it is impossible to cover all the ground. It will be 
sufficient to give some samples of each of these methods with 
references which will enable the reader to supplement this arti- 
cle for himself — especially as this very claim of Dr. Skin- 
ner's contains the admissions that " there are cases where the 
change of manner is not obvious," that the documentary 
" experience " which " repeats itself " does so " not perhaps 
quite so convincingly," and that the analysis is " somewhat 
complicated." 

At this point it is necessary to advert to Dr. Skinner's treat- 
ment of Dr. Orr. The latter's fascinating volume on " The 
Problem of the Old Testament " is well known. Dr. Skinner 
has read it: and it is difficult to think that he has not been 
considerably influenced by it in the admissions he is driven to 
make about J and E, but he objects to Dr. Orr's hypothesis. 
My own view is that Dr. Orr's book points to a far more con- 
servative position than that of its author as the only one tena- 
ble. I do not agree with him in accepting the documentary 
theory at all, nor can I concur in his dating. In fact, his work 
is very valuable ; but to my mind it attains its full force only 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 67 

when it is coupled with the tests (4) and (5) above, which 
lead to an entirely different solution. Hence in so far as Dr. 
Skinner criticizes Dr. Orr's documentary theory I agree with 
him : in so far as he refuses to accept Dr. Orr's view of the 
futility of the JE analysis I disagree with him and clinch the 
matter with my own new materials. 

I begin then with Dr. Skinner's independent admissions 
about J and E: — 

"When we compare the two documents, the first thing that 
strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and contents. 
The only important difference is that E's narrative does not seem 
to have embraced the primitive period, but to have commenced 
with Abraham. But from the point where E strikes into the cur- 
rent of the history, there are few incidents in the one document to 
which .the other does not contain a parallel. What is much more 
remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the manner of narration 
changes in the two documents pari passu. Thus the transition 
from the loose connection of the Abraham legends to the more 
consecutive biography of Jacob, and then to the artistic unity of 
the Joseph stories, is equally noticeable in J and in E. It is this 
extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which 
proves that both documents drew from a common body of tradi- 
tion, and even suggests that that tradition had already been partly 
reduced to writing" (pp. xliiif.). 

"J presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than 
E. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure 
narrative style in the O. T. ; and in Genesis it rarely, if ever, falls 
below the highest level. But while E hardly attains the same per- 
fection of form, there are whole passages, especially in the more 
ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to the one a 
superiority over the other. J excels in picturesque 'objectivity' of 
description, — in the power to paint a scene with few strokes, and 
in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues, in par- 
ticular, are inimitable 'for the delicacy and truthfulness with 
which, character and emotions find expression in them ' (cf. Gen. 
xliv 18 ff.). E, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper vein 
of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account of 
Isaac's sacrifice (xxii), of the expulsion of Hagar (xxi 8ff.), the 
dismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob's 
fraud (xxvii 35 ff.), Jacob's lifelong grief for Rachel (xlviii 7), 
or his tenderness towards Joseph's children (xlviii 14). But here 



68 Pentateuchal Studies 

again no absolute distinction can be drawn; in the history of Jo- 
seph, e.g., the vein of pathos is perhaps more marked in J than in 
E. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it 
is found in several instances that J's objectivity of treatment has 
succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in E 
is transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The 
best example is J's picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable 
Bedawi woman (ch. xvi), as contrasted with E's modernized ver- 
sion of the incident (xxi 8ff.), with its affecting picture of the 
mother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, E (ch'. 
xx ) introduces an extenuation of Abraham's falsehood about his 
wife which is absent from the older narrative of J (xii 10 ff.). 

" It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material 
comprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences 
reduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular 
phrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other" 
(pp. xlviif.)'. 1 

"The redactors have done their work (in Genesis) with consum- 
mate skill and care, and have produced a consecutive narrative 
whose strands it is often difficult to unravel" (p. lvi). 

Certainly these passages are remarkable. Dr. Skinner is 
so impressed with the close correspondence of his two suppo- 
sititious documents that he is driven to suggest that both drew 
on a tradition that " had already been partly reduced to 
writing." I will next quote his reply to Dr. Orr : — 

" What reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical view, 
and coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the first place, the dif- 
ference between J and E is not confined to the divine names. The 
linguistic evidence is very much clearer than Dr. Orr represents ; 2 
and differences of conception, though slight, are real. ... In the 
second place, J and E consist largely of duplicate narratives of the 
same event. It is true, this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has 
no difficulty in conceiving that Abraham twice told the same lie 

1 In other words, no criterion can be laid down which Dr. Skin- 
ner does not immediately contradict, as in the foregoing extracts. 
As to the supposed superior antiquity of J, he is driven to admit 
(on p. liii) that "E has occasionally preserved the more ancient 
form of the tradition." Other critics hold E to be the older docu- 
ment. 

2 Nevertheless, I have not observed that Dr. Skinner has answered 
a single point made by Dr. Orr as to the linguistic evidence. 



The Sivansong of the Wellhausen School 69 

about his wife, and that his son Isaac followed his example, with 
very similar results in the three cases" (p. xli). 

In reply, attention should be drawn to the following facts : 
(a) Dr. Skinner has made no attempt to meet in detail Dr. 
Orr's examination of the linguistic evidence and the differ- 
ences of conception. For example, Dr. Orr's discussion on 
pages 233 ff. of his " Problem " conclusively breaks down Dr. 
Skinner's allegations as to dreams and night visions in E rep- 
resenting a more advanced stage of theological reflection 
(p. 1). Or, again, compare Dr. Skinner's statement as to 
the "national feeling" in both sources (p. 1) with Orr's (pp. 
210 f.). (b) The textual evidence, in fact, disposes of the 
main differences of conception, and shows how the present 
troubles have arisen. Here I may refer to my articles on Jo- 
seph. 1 (c) With regard to duplicate narratives, it should 
first be noted that Dr. Skinner has misunderstood Dr. Orr, as 
the following passage shows : " This suggests, lastly, that 
even were the similarity of incidents as clear as is alleged, it 
would not necessarily prove different authorship. The same 
author might find varying narratives in the traditions or 
sources from which he drew, and might himself reproduce 
them in his history." (Problem, p. 237.) (d) Moreover the 
argument is extraordinarily subjective. As I have pointed out 
elsewhere, the critics first deny the two water stories (Ex. xvii. 
and Num. xx.) to a single author, and then proceed to assign 
two such stories each to J, E,'and perhaps also P. 2 In the 
case of some of the Genesis stories it will appear, to most 
minds, that the supposed duplicates are really narratives of 

1 Supra, Nos. 6 and 7. 

2 See Essays, pp. 104 f . The expression " and Mjeribah " in Ex- 
odus xvii. 7 is missing in the Vulgate, and is clearly a gloss. Com- 
pare Deuteronomy ix. 22; xxxiii. 8, where the place is called Mas- 
sah only. 



70 Pentateuchal Studies 

different events : but, however that may be, I can see no rea- 
son for supposing that the collection of traditions was # made 
first by two schools of writers (J and E) independently, then 
by a redactor of JE, then by a P school, and lastly by a re- 
dactor who combined all these. It must be remembered that 
for all this there is not a scintilla of evidence. 

To come back to Dr. Skinner's admissions. When we turn 
to the detailed discussion in the Commentary, matters are no 
better. After prolonged consideration. Dr. Skinner divides 
Genesis xxxiv. into two sources, which in utter perplexity he 
calls J x and E x , adding (p. 418), " This seems to me the best 
solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the amalgama- 
tion, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles " ! On 
page 456, chapter xxxix., " with the exception of a harmonis- 
ing gloss .... and a sprinkling of E variants," goes to J ; but 
on the next page we read " This conclusion is partly confirmed 
by the literary phenomena [which are then cited]. It is some- 
what disconcerting to find that none of these occur in the cen- 
tral section, 7-20 ; and Wellhausen positively assigns 6-19 to 
E." The phrases supposed to support this are quoted, and 
Dr. Skinner proceeds : " These are not decisive, and on the 
whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the 
dubious linguistic evidence," and so on. On page 465, we 
learn of another passage that " a satisfactory analysis cannot 
be given." On page 486 (chap, xlv.), " The sources, E and J, 
are here so intimately blended that a complete analysis is im- 
possible," etc. Perhaps it will be sufficient on this part of 
the case to close with some admissions as to the Joseph story 
as a whole. " From the other patriarchal biographies it is 
distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly 
conceived 'plot '. . . . To this higher unity everything is sub- 
ordinated ; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally 



The Swan-son? of the Wellhausen School 71 



into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step 
in the development of the theme. . . . The close parallelism of 
J and E, together with the fact that the literary features 
enumerated above are shared by both, show that it had taken 
shape before it came into the hands of ! these writers, and 
strongly suggest that it must have existed in written form " 
(p. 440). When to this are added the admissions cited above, 
the breakdown of the Divine appellations, the breakdown (as 
will be shown hereafter) of the main clue for this section 
(Jacob and Israel), and the fact that the textual evidence, as 
shown in the preceding studies, not merely destroys the de- 
tails of the analysis but also explains the real origin of the 
difficulties of the present text, it will be seen that the admis- 
sion of the unity of the Joseph story is merely a question of 
time. It must be remembered that this is the locus classicus 
for the JE analysis, which falls zvith the establishment of the 
unity of this section and the abandonment of the clue from 
the Divine appellations. 

Next I turn to examine some of the clues. It may be con- 
venient to begin with that which is most important for the 
Joseph story, and collect some of Dr. Skinner's observations 
on the subject. On page xlix we read, " For the name Jacob, 
J substitutes Israel after xxxv 22 (except xlvi 5b) ; E consist- 
ently uses Jacob (except xlvi 2, xlviii 8, 11, 21 [1 25?]." It 
will seem to most people that there is nothing very " consist- 
ent " about a practice to which there are admittedly four or 
five exceptions in a very few chapters, but this is only the 
beginning of our experiences. On pages 438 f., we are told, 
" With regard to the composition of J and E, the most im- 
portant fact is that the clue to authorship supplied by the 
divine names almost entirely fails us, and is replaced by the 
distinction between Israel and Jacob which as names of the 



72 Pentatenchal Studies 

patriarch are characteristic of J and E respectively (ex- 
ceptions are xlvi 2, xlviii 8, 11, 21, [1 25?]; xlvi 5b." I 
agree that this " replaces " the distinction between the di- 
vine appellations, but I go further and say that Dr. Skin- 
ner's statement is a good deal truer than he ever imagined; 
for we have here again the same self-contradictions, the same 
improbable divisions, the same uncertain attitude towards the 
textual evidence. On page 423, in the small print at the top, 
the only section in chapter xxxv. which can be assigned 
" purely " to J is 21, 22a, on the ground that " Israel " occurs 
twice, but at the bottom of the same page Dr. Skinner notes 
in his curious way that in verse 5 the LXX x has " Israel " for 
the Hebrew " Jacob." On page 427, in the small-print note 
on 22a, " Israel," we read, " The name, instead of Jacob, is 
from this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the doc- 
ument J in Genesis." Note that it is only " from this point 
onwards," and, even so, it has sunk to the level of " a fairly 
reliable criterion." On page 474 (chap, xlii.), in the small 
print at the top, " Jacob " is quoted to prove E's authorship of 
verses 29 and 36, but at the bottom it is noted that the Septu- 
agint differs from the Massoretic text in omitting this very 
word in verses 1 and 4. On page 479, " the name Israel " in 
xliii. 6, 8, 11, is a " positive point of contact with J." On 
page 486, E appears from (inter alia) "Jacob" in xlv. 25, 
while " Israel " in verse 28 is an " indubitable trace " of J. 
Our " fairly reliable criterion " is obviously looking up in the 
world. On page 491, at thei top of the page, it is still in good 
credit : " Israel " in xlvi. 29, 30, helps to prove " a continuous 
J narrative," in xlvi. la it vouches for J, while " Jacob " in 
verses 2, 5a, evidences E. But alas for fleeting glories ! The 

1 1 believe that when Dr. Skinner speaks of the LXX without fur- 
ther details, he only means the text of the Cambridge Septuagint. 



The Swansong of the W ellhausen School 73 

bottom of the page witnesses a sad reversal of its fine position, 
for it becomes necessary to comment on the word " Israel " 
in verse 2, and Dr. Skinner is reduced to writing, " The word 
has crept in from verse 1 through an inadvertence of the re- 
dactor or a later scribe " ! On page 492, Dr. Skinner chron- 
icles the fact that the LXX omits " Jacob " on its second 
occurrence in verse 5 (where it had on the preceding page 
proved E's authorship). On page 501, in the small-print note 
on verse 27, we are told that " the verse is usually divided 
between J and P; but ^&riB^ is no sure sign of J, since it de- 
notes the nation." On pages 502, 503, there is some more 
shuffling, and in the small-print note on xlviii. 2b (pp. 503- 
504) the clue is abandoned: " 2b is usually assigned to J be- 
cause of Israel. But the clause comes very naturally after 
2a; and as there are three other cases of confusion between 
the two names, in this chapter (8, 11, 21), the name is not de- 
cisive." It seems unnecessary to follow Dr. Skinner further 
on this point. This clue, like others, is followed and aban- 
doned when convenient. The whole analysis is a mass of the 
most arbitrary subjectivity. For the rest the textual evidence 
which completely disposes of it will be found in " The Answer 
of Textual Criticism to the Higher Criticism of the Story of 
Joseph." 1 

To take some more examples : On xii. 5 we are told in Ger- 
man — probably to make it more impressive — that " land of 
Canaan " is " an almost certain mark of P " (p. 245) ; but on 
page 474 we hear (in the vernacular) that "A peculiar feature 
of this and the following chapters is the name ' land of 
Canaan,' which is elsewhere in Genesis characteristic of P. 
From this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and oth- 
ers had inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; 
1 Supra, pp. 35-38. 



74 Pentateuchal Studies 

but the usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable 
antithesis between Canaan and Egypt," and we are further 
referred to page 438. Here we learn, with regard to this 
hypothesis of a priestly redaction, that " the cases in point 
have been examined by Kuenen, who rightly concludes that 
they are too few in number to bear out the theory of system- 
atic Priestly redaction.'' Needless to say, the textual evidence 
on this phrase has not been considered. Again, when the lists of 
words are critically examined, they yield very curious results. 
Thus, to take merely Dr. Skinner's admissions in the lists 
themselves, we see the following on page xlix: Of J one ex- 
pression is found " also in P," another in xlii. 1 " E ?," a third 
nnssy (of which more hereafter) in " xx 14, xxx 18 R: also 
common in P," a fourth occurs " in E and P once each/' a 
fifth is found " in J about 40 times, in E about 6 times ( in 
Gen.)." Clue after clue has to be abandoned, and the effect 
produced by the successive breakdowns of all these unsound 
arguments is cumulative. E's main list consists of five phrases 
and idioms, but then " a number of rare or archaic words or 
phrases," occurring sometimes only once each in the zvhole 
Pentateuch, are assigned to him to help him out. This sort of 
learned trifling is hardly likely to have influence with any sen- 
sible man. 

As a final example, I take the stylistic argument on page 
315 dealing with chapter xx., " the first continuous excerpt 
from E." First, of course, comes Elohim, verse 18, containing 
the Tetragrammaton, being turned into a gloss, though the 
narrative is incomprehensible without it. After what has 
already been said of this clue, it is only necessary to add 
that in verse 4 14 Hebrew MSS. have the Tetragrammaton. 
Then TOK for "maid-servant" (Jnn&$), but this breaks 
down because the latter word occurs in verse 14. Therefore in 



The Swans on g of the Wellhausen School 75 

that verse another gloss has to be postulated, " this being the 
only instance of nnBB> in an E context." But that is barely 
true. On page 389, we read (xxx.), " 18a£ while correctly 
expressing the idea of E, contains the word nn2£> which E 
avoids; and is therefore probably redactional." The next 
proof is "2X> (pf>), verse 5 "; but in Exodus xiv. 5, J uses S3?. 
That exhausts the more important stylistic clues, but we are 
referred to the notes on four other words and phrases. Of 
one of these, we read " only here in Hexateuch ; E is addicted 
to rare expressions." Of the second, " ' said regarding ' is 
rare : 2 Kings xix 32, Jer. xxii 18, xxvii 19 ; " of the third 
" = 'permit' xxxi 7, Nu. xx 21, xxi 23, xxii 13 (E), 
Ex. xii 23 (J), iii 19 (R), Dt. xviii 14, Jos. x 19 (D) : " 
of the fourth " as xviii 13, Nu. xxii 37 ; but cf Jos. vii 
20. These are all the occurrences in Hexateuch." Joshua 
vii. 20 is given to J in the Oxford Hexateuch. Thus two of 
the four occur nowhere else in the Hexateuch, and the others 
are not exclusively E. Now I ask : Could a single one of those 
clues have a scintilla of probative force for any impartial 
mind? 

These " stylistic peculiarities " are reinforced (?) by oth- 
ers. " The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of 
E." I have already referred to Dr. Orr's refutation of this 
allegation, and Dr. Skinner's failure to meet it. "And the con- 
ception of Abraham as a prophet (7) is at least foreign to the 
original J (but see on xv 1)." I will just put by the side of 
that Dr. Skinner's statement on page 1 : " Nor does the fact 
that Abraham, as a man of God, is called Nabi ["prophet"] 
(xx 7, cf Dt. xxxiv 10) necessarily imply that the figure of 
an Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers." 
And on xv. 1 we read of the Hebrew word for " vision " : 
" Only Nu, xxiv 4, 16, Ezk. xiii 7. The zvord is thus not at 



76 Pentateuchal Studies 

all characteristic of E, though the idea of revelation through 
dreams and visions undoubtedly is " (p. 278). I ask my read- 
ers to turn to the two verses in Numbers (which belong to J), 
and say whether " the idea of revelation through dreams and 
visions " is or is not present. Further on, on " the word of 
the Lord came" (in this very verse), Dr. Skinner writes: 
" The conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel in 
J; and even E, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a Nabi 
["prophet"] (xx 7), does not describe his intercourse with 
God in technical prophetic phraseology." That clue is there- 
fore valueless. Returning to chapter xx., we find Dr. Skin- 
ner laying stress on the fact that " Sarah is here conceived as 
a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king." 
That is a good point — the only point he really makes : but it 
does not justify anything more than the view that this episode 
is probably misplaced; while, as will be seen hereafter, there 
is textual evidence against the present chronology of Genesis. 
Lastly, Dr. Skinner returns to the Divine appellations, and 
says this " is the beginning of a section mainly Elohistic, rep- 
resenting a cycle of tradition belonging to the Negeb and, in 
particular, to Beersheba." That argument also falls with As- 
truc's clue. That disposes of the case on chapter xx. It 
must be remembered that the effect produced by examining 
the critical contentions is cumulative. After a century and a 
half of destructive work, these critics are unable to produce a 
single clue that will bear examination to justify their treat- 
ment of this chapter ; and this is merely typical of the analysis 
in general. 

I now proceed to examine another argument in the light of 
two methods jointly — the consideration of versional evidence 
and of the argument from contexts. For this purpose it will be 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 77 

well to take what Dr. Skinner apparently regards as one of the 
strongest portions of his theory — P's biography of Abraham. 
It is to be remembered that this portion of my discussion can 
be supplemented from Dr. Orr's " Problem," where numerous 
instances of the context argument will be found, and my own 
" Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism," as well as from the ex- 
amination of the story of Joseph, to which reference has been 
made. It must be borne in mind in considering this biogra- 
phy, that Dr. Skinner is arguing against the view that P is a 
mere supplement — a view that I do not hold, as I reject in 
toto the analysis into documents. He writes, " No critical 
operation is easier or more certain than the separation of this 
work, down even to very small fragments, from the context 
in which it is embedded" (p. lvii). He admits (p. lix) that 
" in the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there are un- 
doubtedly omissions which we can only supply from JE; and 
if we were to judge from these parts alone, the supplementary 
theory would be more plausible than it is. We miss, e.g., ac- 
counts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob's arrival in 
Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel, of the birth 
of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt, his recon- 
ciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other particu- 
lars." This does not prevent Dr. Skinner, whose work is one 
mass of inconsistencies, from writing three pages later : " In 
the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose 
that he [P] had any other authorities than J and E. The gen- 
eral course of events is the same, and differences of detail are 
all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code." It ap- 
pears, then, that the omissions not merely are such as "we 
can only supply from JE," but never could have been supplied 
in any other way at all. This, as usual, is supplemented by 
admissions in the Commentary (e.g. pp. 428 f., 438, etc.), but 



78 Pentateuchal Studies 

it is with the supposed strength, not with the admitted 
weakness of the P theory that I desire to deal. Dr. Skinner 
writes :— 

" . . . . Here is literal translation of the disjecta membra of P's 
epitome of the biography of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, 
and only one verse transposed (xix 29) : xii 4b 'Now Abram was 
75 years old when he went out from Harran. 5 And Abram took 
Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions 
which they had acquired, and all the souls whom they had pro- 
cured; and they went out to go to the land of Canaan, and 
they came to the land of Canaan, xiii 6 And the land could 
not bear them so that they might dwell together, for their 
possessions were great, and they were not able to dwell together, 
lib So they separated from one another: 12ab Abram dwelt 
in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the Oval. 
xix 29 And when God destroyed the cities of the Oval, God re- 
membered Abraham, and sent Lot away from the midst of the 
overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. — 
xvi 1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. 3 So 
Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, after 
Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her 
to Abram her husband for a wife to him. 15 And Hagar bore to 
Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar 
bore to him Ishmael. 16 And Abram was 86 years old when Hagar 
bore Ishmael to Abram.' [Then follows chap. xvii. in full.] 
. . . The narrative is resumed in xxi lb [but Dr. Skinner has to ex- 
plain the Tetragrammaton in this verse as a scribal error, and I 
therefore correct his translation in this respect]. 'And Q-od did to 
Sarah as he had spoken, 2b at the appointed time which God had 
mentioned. 3 And Abraham called the name of his son who was 
born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. 4 And Abraham cir- 
cumcised Isaac his son when he was 8 days old, as God had com- 
manded him. And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son 
was born to him. xxiii 1 And the life of Sarah was 127 years; 2 
And Sarah died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of 
Canaan.' . . . [Then chap, xxiii. in full, followed by] ' xxv 7 And 
these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he 
lived: 175 years; 8 and he expired. And Abraham died in a good 
old age, an old man and full [of years] and was gathered to his 
father's kin. 9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the 
cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the 
Hittite, which is opposite Mam re : 10 the field which Abraham 
bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 79 

Sarah his wife. — 11 And after the death of Abraham, God blessed 
Isaac his son.' [Dr. Skinner then says:] The reader can judge for 
himself whether a narrative so continuous as this, every isolated 
sentence of which has been detached from its context by unmis- 
takable criteria of the style of P, is likely to have been produced 
by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an older work" 
(p. lviii). 

I fancy that there are a good many other points on this 
curious production which the reader can and will judge for 
himself. If from any biography isolated sentences are snipped 
off relating to successive episodes, some measure of contin- 
uity must result. Take a long life of any modern statesman, 
cut out sentences relating to his birth, marriage, death, and 
one or two episodes, print them consecutively, and you will 
necessarily have a continuous narrative of a sort. But it does 
not follow that it will be in the slightest degree probable that 
the continuous narrative is original. 

In this case there are three glaring incredibilities, to start 
with: (1) It is contrary to the whole genius of Hebrew lit- 
erature to compose such a meager, dry, desiccated, colorless 
narrative as this. There is nothing like it in the Old Testa- 
ment. (2) The supposititious writer to whom it is assigned 
is supposed to be characterized by prolixity 'and redundancy, 
which makes the theory that he of all people should have pro- 
duced such a composition still more incredible. (3) The omis- 
sions are such as to make the narrative unintelligible. For 
example, "God .... sent Lot away." How or whither? 
Such a statement cannot stand alone. Nor does even Dr. 
Skinner suppose that it can, for he writes of this verse on 
page 310: "The dependence of P on J is very manifest." 
That of course is fatal to his hypothesis, for if the dependence 
is very manifest, there is no independent document P, which 
is what Dr. Skinner undertook to prove. He cannot both eat 
his cake and have it. Abram called his son's name Ishmael. 



80 Pentateuchal Studies 

Why? No reason whatever appears. Again, there is a gap 
as to Abraham's prosperity. If " after the death of Abraham, 
God blessed Isaac his son," the narrative must have explained 
somewhere that during his lifetime God blessed the father. 

With regard to the marks of style by which this strange 
narrative is separated, it would of course be possible to show 
their futility in detail, but after what has already been said 
that is perhaps unnecessary. Our old friends " Elohim," 
" land of Canaan," etc., would come in again, and they would 
be joined by a number of auxiliaries of the same caliber. I 
turn to the effect of this separation on the general narrative 
and to some versional evidence. 

The result of separating xii. 4b, 5, from the context is to 
leave a statement in verse 6 that Abram " passed through the 
land." This with only the data of J must refer back to " thy 
country," but the end of the sentence shows this to be non- 
sense. Hence something in the nature of the excised passage 
must be supplied to make J's narrative intelligible. In the 
next passage (xiii. 6) the Septuagintal MSS. E, a, c 2 , rightly 
omit the words " and they could not dwell together," assigned 
to J. Here again the J context demands P for its explanation : 
"And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cat- 
tle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." Why? Obviously be- 
cause the land could not suffice for both. The explanation 
lies in P's "And the land was not able to bear them, that they 
might dwell together: for their substance was great." Then 
comes xiii. lib. On this, Dr. Skinner admits " lib, in spite of 
its resemblance to 9a/3, must be assigned to P, being necessary 
to the completeness of that account, and because it disturbs 
the connexion of 11a with 12b @, ,y i.e. this verse is given to 
P not on any evidence, but because of the exigencies of the 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 81 

theory. 1 The section in its original form reads perfectly, and 
there is no reason for tearing it asunder. We have already 
seen that xix. 29 cannot stand alone, and need therefore not 
linger over the textual evidence. Next comes xvi. la. Its 
severance leaves J to begin with the impossible "And she had 
a handmaid." Who was " she " ? J's sentence will not read 
without the opening. In verse 3 the Vulgate omits " Sarai 
Abram's wife " and also both the other occurrences of 
"Abram." The best MS. of the LXX exhibits a text that has 

been glossed, as is proved by the impossible \a/3ov<ra real 

ehco/eev. The variants suggest that it may originally have 
read "And she took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, and 
gave her to her husband to be his wife." This, supported as 
it is in part by the Vulgate, appears to me to be correct. It is 
important to notice that the schematic chronology " after 
Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan " is un- 
known to this text. 2 The marks of P's style are, in fact, the 
work of glossators, as in so many other cases. Next, the re- 
moval of xvi. 15, 16, leaves Ishmael unborn in JE, where he 
makes an unexpected appearance in xxi. 9. But here again 
the textual evidence is very important. The two MSS. (d, p) 
that omitted the previous chronological notice in xvi. 3 also 
omit the zvhole of verse 16. Other Septuagintal variants here 
recorded in the larger Cambridge Septuagint point to other 
chronology. As to verse 15, the Vulgate reads "And Hagar 

1 Consequently Dr. Skinner's allegation that "every isolated sen- 
tence has been detached from its context by unmistakable criteria 
of the style of P " cannot be supported. 

'How important the chronological scheme is to the P analysis 
may be seen on page lxii, where Dr. Skinner writes (after the ad- 
mission quoted before as to the dependence on J and E) : " But 
the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history, both 
primitive and patriarchal-, is reduced to a meagre summary, with 
little save chronological significance," etc. (my italics). 



82 Pentateuchal Studies 

bare Abram a son: and he called his name Ishmael." Its 
omissions are confirmed by Septuagintal MSS. Again, in 
xvii. there are significant variations — especially in the age of 
Ishmael (ver. 25), who, according to another reading, was 
three, not thirteen, years old (compare chap. xxi. 14, 15, 18), 
but it is impossible, for reasons of space, to treat of this chap- 
ter now, and we come to xxi. lb. The Septuagintal MS. n 
omits this half-verse, probably rightly. The Vulgate cuts it 
down to the words " and did as he had spoken," which, how- 
ever, may be a paraphrase. Neither of these texts will suit 
Dr. Skinner. In 2b " at the set time " is missing in two Sep- 
tuagintal MSS., and the LXX substitutes the Tetragramma- 
ton for " God." Verse 3 again is omitted altogether by one 
Septuagintal MS. — possibly by accident — and is in any 
case heavily glossed, as the other variants show. It is per- 
haps unnecessary to continue these somewhat dry details. It 
is of course quite possible to continue the refutation, but these 
samples are sufficient to show what can be done. No textual 
critic who examines these instances carefully can doubt that 
Dr. Skinner's method is radically unsound. 1 

Perhaps it may be said that I am merely substituting one 
set of hypotheses for another. That charge would be quite 
unfair, for it would overlook the important fact that I am 
careful to follow the evidence. The Vulgate is a well-known 
translation of the Bible that to this day possesses great author- 
ity. So is the Septuagint. But J and E and P and D are 

x The facts stated above respecting variants to the chronological 
notices are of great importance. It turns out that the extraordi- 
nary chronological embarrassments of Genesis are in part due to 
the work of a late annotator. See No. 4, supra. For the present 
purpose, however, it is to be noted that these readings are of vital 
consequence, not merely to the question of the composition of Gene- 
sis, but also to any estimate of its historical character, which has 
been attacked largely on chronological grounds. 



The Szvansong of the Wellhausen School 83 

mere conjectural figments of whom history knows nothing — 
the creations of some very subjective minds which have ig- 
nored the available evidence. How subjective and arbitrary 
the whole theory is, may be very strikingly exemplified from a 
statement that of thirty-one passages in JE in which Kraetz- 
schmar (another member of the school) finds a particular idea, 
all but three are assigned by Dr. Skinner to the Deuter- 
onomic redaction (p. 284). That is a very interesting illus- 
tration of the way in which the documentary theory feeds on 
itself. 

I come now to the last test I propose to apply — the dating. 
We have already seen that x. 19 (certainly) and ii. 14 
(probably) contain passages that must be pre-Mosaic. It is, 
moreover, to be noted that no post-Mosaic background can 
possibly be found for many of the narratives of Genesis, e.g. 
that of Noah's drunkenness (Skinner, p. 187). With re- 
gard to Genesis xiv., again, Dr. Skinner has to admit " some 
traditional (perhaps documentary) material" (p. 272). But 
these considerations do not stand alone. After showing the 
compatibility of the patriarchal narratives with Oriental 
archaeology, Dr. Skinner adds: — 

"All this is of the utmost value; and if the patriarchs lived in 
this age, then this is the background against which we have to set 
their biographies. But the real question is whether there is such 
a correspondence between the biographies and their background 
that the former would be unintelligible if transplanted to other 
and later surroundings. We should gladly welcome any evidence 
that this is the case; but it seems to us that the remarkable thing 
about these narratives is just the absence of background and their 
general compatibility with the universal conditions of ancient East- 
ern life" (pp. xvif.). 

That is to say, that what is now wanted is more evidence that 
will not fit any but early conditions. Some evidence of that 
nature can be provided by comparative jurisprudence. If 



84 Pentateuchal Studies 

Noah's law of homicide is shown by the comparative method 
to be much earlier than Exodus or Numbers or Deuteronomy, 
there is an end alike of the documentary hypothesis which 
would make it a post-exilic production — though the Babylon- 
ian law of homicide was quite different — and of the histor- 
ical theories that depend on this hypothesis. Such evidence is 
in fact forthcoming'. I showed in the London Churchman for 
January, 1908, that the legal evidence strongly confirmed the 
book of Genesis. It is impossible to transcribe the whole of 
that article, but the following passage may be quoted : — 

"But, then, may it not be argued that the legal conditions were 
common to the post-Mosaic period and the patriarchal age? Can 
it not be said that in legal matters ' the narratives are more or 
less coloured by the ideas of later ages?' The answer — which is 
important — is in the negative. There are, of course, no sufficient 
materials for writing a history of Hebrew law in Biblical times, 
but, so far as it goes, the evidence of the Book of Genesis will not 
fit in with the critical theories. Perhaps the most interesting case 
is the conveyance of the field of Machpelah to Abraham, a passage 
attributed by the critics to the supposititious exilic or post-exilic 
'P.' Like every other legal transaction in the Book of Genesis, 
and unlike every Babylonian legal tablet, it is conspicuous for the 
absence of writing. When it is contrasted with the very modern 
form of conveyance with which we meet in Jeremiah xxxii., it at 
once becomes evident that it represents a much more primitive 
stage of legal development. The instance is peculiarly important, 
because we are asked to believe that ' P ' (who is supposed to have 
been very much under Babylonian influence) forged or inserted 
the narrative of the purchase of the cave of Machpelah for the 
purpose of giving validity to the claim of the Israelites to the land 
of Canaan. Now, had that been so, it is evident that a writer who, 
according to the critics, is distinguished by a peculiarly lawyer-like 
style would never have failed to mention every particular that was 
material to the complete validity of the transaction according to 
the ideas of his own age. Nor can it be said that he would have 
been deterred by any scantiness of information or any scruples as 
to the truth, for ex hypothesi he was an admitted master of fiction, 
wholly devoid of anything that we should regard as historical con- 
science. 

"The law of homicide also presents us with some interesting 



The Szvansong of the Wellhausen School 85 

testimony. The story of Cain the outlaw, subject to death at the 
hands of any man who met him, reveals a legal institution wtell 
known to students of early law. 1 But here it is important to no- 
tice that it brings us face to face with an earlier state oflaw than 
that postulated by the Mosaic legislation. The blood feud is not 
yet recognized. It is not yet the duty of the avenger of the blood 
alone to exact retribution for the crime. The murderer is expelled 
from the religious and social community, and left as an outcast 
from the peace and protection of the tribe, to encounter single- 
handed any stranger or enemy — the terms are synonymous in early 
times — he may meet. Nor is the position much better for the 
higher critics if we turn to * P ' : ' Whoso sheddeth the blood of 
man, by man shall his blood be shed.' That is not the law of * JE ' 
or 'D' or 'P' with the place appointed for refuge in certain cases 
of homicide. The distinction between murder and other classes of 
homicide has not yet been drawn. 2 

"Another matter that has probably never been considered by any 
higher critic is the history of the patria potestas — the legal power 
of a father over the children. As at Rome, so among the ancient He- 
brews, the jus vitae necisque was at first quite unlimited. 3 We have 
several instances of this, the most striking being Judah's conduct 
to his daughter-in-law (xxxviii. 24), who had passed into his 
potestas by her marriage, and Reuben's treatment of his children 
(xlii'. 3). It is to be noted that in neither case is there any sug- 
gestion of a trial. The paterfamilias acts with plenary authority. 
But in both Rome and ancient Israel this power underwent cur- 
tailment. It is true that the power to sell or pledge children en- 
dured to the end of Old Testament times (Neh. v. 5), and probably 
the paternal power was in many ways extremely extensive till a 
very late period, 4 but the family jurisdiction in cases of wrong- 

1 See Post, Grundriss, vol. i. pp. 163-165, 352-354 ; vol. ii. p. 248 ; 
Kulischer, Zeitschrift f. vergl. Rechtsw., vol. xvii. p. 3 ; Studies in 
Biblical Law, p. 105. 

2 Here, again, there are universal parallels to the course of legal 
history as depicted in the Bible. The distinction is elsewhere later 
than the treatment of all cases of homicide as being on the same 
footing. See Post, op. cit, vol. i. pp. 237 f . ; vol. ii. pp. 333 f . 

3 For a succinct account of the history of the patria potestas with 
the jus vitae necisque at Rome, see Moyle on Justinian Institutes, 
vol. i. tit. 9. The parallel is sometimes extremely close. There are 
countless parallels among other peoples. 

4 Especially in religious matters. The power to sacrifice chil- 
dren appears to have long survived. 



86 Pentateuchal Studies 

doing had been greatly curtailed before the days of Moses. I am 
not thinking merely of the provisions of Deuteronomy xxi. 18-21. 
If they were all we had, the critics might reasonably suggest that 
the relative dates of ' D ' and ' JE ' would account for the alteration. 
But it is clear that in Exodus xxi. 15, 17, offences against parents 
are no longer regarded as matters for the domestic tribunal, but 
are included within the competence of the ordinary courts of elders. 
Times have changed since the days of Judah and Tamar." 

At this point I leave the analysis, having tested it sufficiently 
for the purpose of this article. It is interesting to note that 
in other matters Dr. Skinner is as unreliable as in the instances 
we have considered. For example, speaking of J and E, he 
writes (p. 1) : "A very singular circumstance is that while 
both frequently record the erection of altars by the patriarchs, 
they are remarkably reticent as to the actual offering of sacri- 
fice: E refers to it only twice (xxii, xlvi 1), and J never at 
all in the patriarchal history (contrast iv 3 ff., viii 20 ff.)." 
With this we may compare page 246. Yet, in xxxi. 54, E 
records a sacrifice, and we read of " feasts " in xix. 3 ; xxi. 8 ; 
xxvi. 30 (the covenant of Isaac and Abimelech), and xxix. 
22. Presumably there were sacrifices in some of these cases. 
Certainly Dr. Skinner, who holds that profane slaughter was 
a Deuteronomic innovation, would say so. Further, we are 
repeatedly told of building altars and calling on the name of 
the Lord. Does Dr. Skinner really suppose that this was done 
without sacrifice? Another choice example of his reliability 
is to be found in his note on the word for drink-offering in 
xxxv. 14 (p. 425). He writes: " 2 Kings xvi 13, 15 is the 
only other instance of the word before Jeremiah .... its legal- 
isation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezk. xlv 17 
and P." As his reference to Kings shows that it was properly 
and legally used in the Temple long before the date to which 
he would assign Ezekiel or P, the note is an admirable instance 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 87 

of the confusion in which his theory involves him. Again, on 
page 420, in connection with circumcision, he speaks of " the 
fact that both J (Ex. iv 25) and E (Jos. v 3 fL) record its in- 
troduction in the age of the Exodus." It is scarcely necessary 
to say that his references do not support his allegation. 

Finally, something must be said on Dr. Skinner's views of 
the historical or rather unhistorical character of Genesis. A 
large part of his introduction is devoted to these. The fore- 
going discussion is fortunately destructive of a considerable 
portion of them. If it be the case that we have in Genesis tra- 
ditions that go back at least as far as the time of Abraham, it 
does not matter that " the historical memory of the pre-Islamic 
Arabs was so defective that all knowledge of great nations 
like the Nabataeans and Thamudites had been lost within two 
or three centuries" (p. vi). Or perhaps it would be more 
correct to say that such parallels provide a foil to display more 
fully the superiority of Genesis. They also show how hard 
the critics have worked to discredit the Bible. Again, it is 
quite immaterial whether or not Genesis relates to " great pub- 
lic and political events." An inquiry into the historical charac- 
ter of Genesis means an inquiry whether that book contains a 
trustworthy account of actual happenings. If Abraham lived 
as is recorded in that book, then the life of Abraham is a his- 
torical fact, and it is none the less historical because Abraham 
was not a king, a general, or a politician. Genesis does not 
claim to narrate the fortunes of a king Abraham : it deals with 
the life story of a man of that name. All happenings consti- 
tute history. Nor again is there any force in the argument 
based on chapter xxiv. of which Dr. Skinner writes : " We 
may assume that the scene at the well of Harran actually took 
place ; but that the description owes its graphic power to a re- 
production of the exact words spoken and the precise actions 



88 Pentateuchal Studies 

performed on the occasion cannot be supposed" (p. vi). Of 
course not: probably the exact words spoken would have 
brought the scene very much less vividly before us than the 
actual narrative that we have. But that does not impair the 
historical character of the book. Those who wish to comment 
on the narrative would do well to consider that a literary 
artist seeks to convey a true picture of the events that form 
his subject-matter. Just as a portrait may faithfully represent 
the original though it differs in colors, size, etc., so may a nar- 
rative of this character reproduce the interview with more 
fidelity to its true import and spirit than a verbatim report of 
the actual dialogue. The author's duty is to bring the scene 
before our eyes as graphically as possible, provided that in so 
doing he does not introduce any untrue element. He too must 
take account of perspective. To put a narrative into literary 
form is not to falsify it. " The final test .... is the hard 
matter-of-fact test of self-consistency and credibility" (p. vi). 
Here distinctions must be drawn between various parts of 
Genesis. With regard to the earlier narratives, Dr. Skinner's 
views might have been entitled to more respect if he had 
shown any power of sympathizing with the methods of the 
narrative or any acquaintance with Dr. Wright's " Scientific 
Confirmations of Old Testament History." 

How incapable he is of understanding the genius of the 
book may perhaps be illustrated by quoting his note on 
" the herb of the field " in iii. 18 : " The creation of this order 
of vegetation has not been recorded by J. Are we to suppose 
that it comes into existence simply in consequence of the 
earth's diminished productivity caused by the curse? It seems 
implied at all events that the earth will not yield even this, ex- 
cept under the compulsion of human labour" (p. 84). Sym- 
pathy with a narrator's spirit and methods of expression is 



The Swansong of the Wellhausen School 89 

indispensable to an intelligent exposition of his meaning, and 
this quality Dr. Skinner unhappily does not possess. Hence 
while some of his criticisms on the earlier chapters contain a 
measure of truth, we cannot look to him for any real appre- 
ciation of the meaning of the book. And with regard to the 
patriarchal traditions, we have seen even in this article how a 
sifting of the text may remove " impossible situations." There 
may be some discrepant traditions in the book, but all specu- 
lations on this subject are premature till we know more of the 
textual history. I have seen too many problems that seemed 
insoluble yield to some surprisingly simple solution, to have 
any faith at all in the complicated guesswork that appeals to 
Dr. Skinner's credulity. A final example of this may be taken 
from the discussion of chapter xxxviii. : " It is obvious that 
the legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of 
the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of 
Judah from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a 
reunion [ ! H.M.W.]. Although P, who had both before him, 
represents Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying 
Jacob to Egypt (xlvi 12), there can be no doubt that the inten- 
tion of this passage is to relate the permanent settlement of 
Judah in Palestine"! (p. 450). Lucubrations of this kind 
need no refutation. It is only necessary to read the chapter 
in order to see that it refers to a family incident and is quite 
innocent of any " intention to relate the permanent settle- 
ment " of a tribe. 



IX 

THE HIGHER CRITICAL QUANDARY (I) 
A CORRESPONDENCE WITH DRS. BR1GGS AND DRIVER 

[From the Bihliotheca Sacra, July, 1911.] 

In the Expositor for September, 1910, is an article by 
the Rev. Professor Alex. R. Gordon, D.Litt, Montreal, en- 
titled " Skinner's ' Genesis.' " The following sentences oc- 
cur in it: — 

"He [Dr. Skinner] is frank even to a fault, and appreciative of 
every honest effort to get nearer to the original. . . . The general 
superiority of the Massoretic text he valiantly defends . . . against 
the strangely perverse attempt of ' the more recent opposition ' 
represented by Dahse and Wiener to prove the Massoretic text 'so 
unreliable that no analysis of documents can be based on its data.' 
In his most caustic vein he observes : ' Truth is sometimes stranger 
than fiction; and, however surprising it may seem to some, we can 
reconcile our minds to the belief that the M. T. does reproduce 
with substantial accuracy the characteristics of the original auto- 
graphs.' . . . 

" This carefully judicial habit of mind lends all the greater 
weight to Dr. Skinner's pronouncements on the ' higher critical ' 
question. Here he shows no hesitation. ' My own belief in the 
essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis,' he says in the 
Preface, ' has been confirmed by the renewed examination of the 
text of Genesis which my present undertaking required.' . . . We 
have already quoted one of the sardonic sentences in which he 
disposes of Wiener's attempt to evade the problem by a frank 
abandonment of the reliability of the Hebrew." 

The following is a complete copy of some correspondence 
that arose out of this article in the Expositor, with the ex- 
ception of covering letters and letters marked " not for pub- 
lication." 

90 



The Higher Critical Quandary 91 

9 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

24 October 1910. 
To the General Editors of the 

" International Critical Commentary," 

per the Rev. Canon Driver, D.D., F.B.A., etc., 
Christ Church, Oxford.. 
Gentlemen : — 

It is with supreme reluctance that I find myself compelled 
to write and draw your attention to the false position in 
which Dr. Skinner has placed you; but unfortunately I can- 
not now feel any doubt as to my duty in the matter, although 
I well know that the inevitable result will be to put you in 
a position that will give you no less pain than my present 
action does me. 

For the detailed facts of the case I must refer you to my 
article in the October number of the Bibliotheca Sacra of 
which I am posting a copy to Dr. Driver. 1 In reliance on 
this I just summarise the material points. 

1. In discussing the Divine appellations in Genesis Dr. 
Skinner only records 50 cases of divergences from the Masso- 
retic Text and bases his argument on these. In fact he well 
knew that the actual number was very much greater, and 
he had twice had his attention drawn to this in public. The 
evidence of knowledge is as follows: — (a) the reference 
in his discussion to my article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 
January 1909; (b) his statement as to the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch in the Expository Times for May 1909; (c) the ad- 
ditional variants he records in the body of his commentary; 
(d) Professor Schlogl's contribution to the Expository Times 
for September 1909 in a controversy toi which Dr. Skinner 

I 1 Supra, No. 8, "The Swansong of the Wellhausen School."] 



92 Pentateuchal Studies 

was himself a party. Thus we have here both suppressio veri 
and suggestio falsi. 

2. Dr. Skinner argues on the assumption that differences 
might be explained by causes purely internal to the Septua- 
gint and says not a word of any Hebrew (or other) corrob- 
oration of Septuagintal readings. He is here deliberately 
arguing on a false issue after his attention had twice been 
publicly drawn to the true issue. The evidence for his knowl- 
edge is as follows: (a) the reference in his discussion to my 
article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January 1909 ; (b) the 
note of Mr. Cox in the Expository Times for May 1909; (c) 
my reply in the issue of the same magazine for July 1909. 

3. In spite of all this Dr. Skinner writes as follows in the 
preface which is dated April 1910 : — " My own belief in the 
essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been con- 
firmed by the renewed examination of the text of Genesis 
which my present undertaking required." Read in its context 
that sentence has only one natural — and indeed necessary — 
interpretation: viz, that he had given a full and fair examin- 
ation to the facts and arguments adduced by his opponents. 
In truth he had done nothing of the sort. Here I must ask 
you to refer to pages 243 f of the Expositor for September 
1910. You will see that Dr. Gordon has, through no fault 
of his own, been deceived — I fear that is the right word — 
by Dr. Skinner. He naturally assumed that Dr. Skinner had 
told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on 
the matters with which he purported to deal. 

After much anxious thought I had succeeded in persuad- 
ing myself that I might leave my article in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra to have its natural effect and had abandoned the half- 
formed intention of writing to you on the subject. Then came 
Professor Gordon's article in the September Expositor. On 



The Higher Critical Quandary 93 

reading it I could 1 not help seeing that it was my duty to 
point out to you what had been done under the cover and 
sanction of your names. I have only waited for the appear- 
ance of the October number of the Bibliotheca Sacra to avoid 
the necessity of writing a letter the size of a pamphlet ; but in 
the interval I have received further confirmation in the shape 
of notices of a volume of mine by Professor Condamin and a 
Saturday Reviewer, both of whom have obviously taken Dr. 
Skinner's allegations at face value. It seems so improbable 
that a man of Dr. Skinner's standing should adopt such, meth- 
ods and that he should not see in what a position he was 
placing you, that I have earnestly striven to believe that I 
was mistaken, or at any rate had taken too grave a view of 
the matter; but if a critic of Professor Gordon's knowledge 
and authority has been utterly misled, this theory becomes 
untenable. I limit the question to Professor Gordon for the 
sake of clearness and simplicity: but you will understand 
that every reader of the book who had not been warned would 
naturally be deceived and that to my knowledge this has 
actually occurred in at least two other instances. 

I reserve liberty to publish this letter and any correspond- 
ence arising out of it not marked confidential, and of course 
I consent to similar action on your part. 

I am sending a copy of this letter to Messrs. T. & T. Clark, 
the British publishers, whose interest in the matter appears 
to me to be second only to your own. 

Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 



94 Pentateuchal Studies 

from dr. driver 

Ch. Ch v Oxford, 

Oct. 26. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am in receipt of your letter, and accompanying number 
of the Bibliotheca Sacra. I will communicate your letter as 
soon as possible to Dr. Briggs. I cannot, however, promise 
you a speedy answer : for, as he is in New York, we can only 
confer by correspondence, which may necessitate more than 
one letter on each side. 

Yours faithfully, 

S. R. Driver. 

to dr. driver 

9 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

27 October 1910. 
Dear Sir: — 

Thank you for your letter. I fully understand and am 
quite content to wait. Indeed in this matter my sympathies 
are very strongly with you, and I should be only too glad if 
you could find yourself in a position to say that on referring 
the matter to Dr. Skinner he had been able in some unex- 
pected way to justify himself completely. 

I ought perhaps to tell you that some weeks ago I sent 
Sir W. R. Nicoll an answer to Dr. Gordon which may pos- 
sibly appear next month. 

Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 

The Rev. Canon Driver, D.D., F.B.A., 
Christ Church, Oxford. 



The Higher Critical Quandary 95 

FROM THE GENERAL EDITORS 

Dear Sir: — 

In reply to your letter of October 24, we desire to say 
that in our opinion Dr. Skinner has in no way either placed 
us in a false position, or otherwise compromised us. We con- 
ceive that it is the function of an editor to secure, so far as 
this is possible, the author whom he considers to be generally 
the most competent to do the work to be entrusted to him, and 
with whose principles and point of view, so far as they affect 
the work to be done, he is generally in agreement. But, 
having secured an author, with whom upon general grounds, 
we are as editors thus satisfied, we must, in regard to the 
way in which he carries out his work, give him a free hand. 
It is neither required nor expected of us, as editors, that we 
should in every detail tell him what arguments he is to use 
or not use, what conclusions he is to adopt or not to adopt, 
what writers or publications he is to mention or not to men- 
tion. Such matters as these are left naturally to his own 
judgment; and if his judgment in any given case leads him 
to use or not use a particular argument, to adopt or not 
adopt a particular conclusion, to mention or not to mention 
a particular writer or publication, we do not consider that as 
editors we are in any way responsible. Even therefore though 
it were true that in the particular case to which you have 
called our attention, Dr. Skinner was at fault, we could not 
consistently with what we regard as our position as editors 
consider ourselves to be in any respect compromised. 

In fairness however to Dr. Skinner, we think it right to 
add that we do not consider him to have been at fault in his 
treatment of the case to which you have referred. There ap- 
pears to us to be no evidence that, when writing the sentence 
quoted by you from his preface, Dr. Skinner had not given a 



96 Pentateuchal Studies 

full and fair examination to the facts and arguments adduced 
by his opponents. He was under no obligation to state in 
detail what he had done. The fact that he had reached, from 
the facts adduced, different conclusions from those which you 
had reached, is not evidence that he had not properly consid- 
ered them; and he himself assures us that he had done this. 
As we have already said, it appears to us that it is for a 
writer to decide himself what arguments, or opposing views, 
he mentions. If therefore, after having examined, as he tells 
us he has done, the conclusions drawn by Prof. Schlogl or 
yourself from the additional variants, and the Hebrew corrob- 
oration, w r hich you complain of his not mentioning, he was of 
opinion that they were not established, we do not understand 
why blame should attach to him for not referring to them. 

Yours faithfully, 

C. A. Briggs. 
S. R. Driver. 
Jan. 4, 1911. 

to the general editors 

9 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

6 January 1911. 
To the General Editors of the 

" International Critical Commentary," 

per the Rev. Canon Driver, D.D., F.B.A., etc., 
Christ Church, Oxford. 
Gentlemen : — 

I am obliged to you for your letter of the 4th inst. 
From the first paragraph of the letter I gather that the 
appearance of your names on a volume of the International 
Critical Commentary does not in your opinion render you in 



The Higher Critical Quandary 97 

any way responsible for the truthfulness or the good faith of 
its contents. I did not know that this was your view when I 
wrote on the 24th October 1910. At that time I believed that 
the appearance of your names on a volume was a sufficient 
guarantee of good faith, that not one of the editors of 
the International Critical Commentary would wittingly allow 
his name to appear on a publication that was intended to de- 
ceive, and that if Dr. Skinner's volume contained anything 
that was not in accordance with the nicest standards of honor 
you were a proper tribunal to deal with the matter. If I was 
wrong in all this, I may at any rate thank you for your lucid 
exposition of the principles that guide you. I now understand 
that the only responsibility you admit to the public and to 
those who may buy a volume in reliance on your names is 
that of choosing an author whom you regard as suitable. 

With regard to the second paragraph of your letter there 
are two points that call for reply. 

(1) You write: "it appears to us that it is for a writer 
to decide himself what arguments, or opposing views, he 
mentions." That is, I think, susceptible of more than one 
meaning. In the case before us Dr. Skinner had decided to 
refer to my article in the Bibliotheca Sacra and to write an 
answer to it. Having come to that decision I claim that it 
was his duty to state my facts and arguments fairly, and not 
expressly or by implication to mislead his readers. He has 
failed to act fairly in all the following respects: (a) he has 
ignored the additional variants I had adduced and called the 
readings in all such passages "undisputed": (b) he has 
himself on Syriac evidence rejected a reading which he here 
reckons as "undisputed" (Skinner, p. 330; cp. Bib. Sac. Oct. 
1910, p. 660 ] ) : (c) he has written an answer which is cal- 
l 1 Supra, p. 55.] 



98 Pentateuchal Studies 

culated to make his readers believe that I had advanced an 
argument based on what might be purely Greek corruptions 
and nothing more. Now your canon might mean that in your 
opinion a writer is free to elect to mention some only of 
an opponent's arguments, even where those arguments form 
an interdependent whole, or you might repudiate this inter- 
pretation. In any case I feel it my duty to express clearly 
my dissent from the standard you have set up. In my view 
it is the duty of a writer to tell the truth, the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth with regard to any point that he 
thinks deserving of detailed discussion. For the sake of 
clearness I will take an illustration from every-day life. If 
a man were to tell me that he had three apples and begin to 
argue on that basis when in truth and in fact he had six, I 
should not regard his presentation of the case as satisfactory; 
and I cannot apply any other standard to a man who records 
50 variants and argues on that basis, when to his knowledge 
there are not fewer than 189. I may point out that since 
you state in your letter that Dr. Skinner had considered the 
additional variants, his acquaintance with them is no longer 
open to question. 

(2) You say: "If, therefore, after having examined . . . 
the conclusions drawn by Professor Schlogl or yourself . . . 
he was of opinion that they were not established, we do not 
understand why blame should attach to him for not referring 
to them." Permit me to say that I never suggested that any 
blame would attach in such a contingency. My complaint 
had no reference whatever to any " conclusions." He stated 
my conclusions with sufficient fulness and then argued against 
them on premises that were false to his knowledge. I com- 
plained of suppression of facts, suggestion of falsehood, 
ignoring of arguments. You must, I think, be able to un- 



The Higher Critical Quandary 99 

derstand the difference between a fact and a conclusion 
drawn from that fact. The former is something undeniable, 
the latter an inference as to which different minds may con- 
ceivably differ. This part of your letter is therefore not 
ad rem. 

As the O. T. general editors of the International Critical 
Commentary admit no responsibility if the contributors to 
that series fail in the elements of truthfulness, it must be left 
to the public to judge this matter. 

I thank you for the trouble you have taken. 

Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 

from dr. driver 

Ch. Ch., Oxford. 

Jan. 10. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am in receipt of your letter, which I have forwarded to 
Dr. Briggs. Until I hear from him, I am naturally unable 
to say whether we shall desire to send you a reply or not. 

Yours faithfully, 

S. R. Driver. 

to dr. driver 

9 Old Square, 

Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

11 January 1911. 
Dear Sir: — 

In view of your letter of yesterday's date I should like to 
know your wishes as to immediate publication of the corre- 
spondence. When I received the letter of Jan. 4 I thought 
that it barred the way to further discussion because it ap- 



100 Pentateuchal Studies 

peared to me that the differences between us were partly 
due to two entirely incompatible theories of editorial respon- 
sibility. Accordingly I sent off a complete copy of the cor- 
respondence to the Bibliotheca Sacra. I am therefore 
writing today to delay its publication for two or three days, 
and I should be glad to know whether you would like me 
to delay it further until you can hear from Dr. Briggs. 

We are so little ad idem in this matter that I venture, to 
ask you to try and realise some of the considerations that 
weigh with me. Before I came to Biblical studies I should 
have believed that such an episode as this of Dr. Skinner was 
impossible. Gradually I have been robbed of one illusion 
after another ; but I believe that a large portion of the general 
public still think as I did some seven years ago. If that be 
so they ought to be disabused of their belief: and for that 
reason the speedy publication of the correspondence appears 
to me to be desirable. 

On the other hand I am naturally extremely anxious that 
I should not do you the slightest injustice. Yesterday's let- 
ter suggests to me a possibility that when you signed the 
letter of Jan. 4 you had perhaps not quite grasped all that 
was involved in my original letter. Now if that be so, I have 
not attained my object. I tried to make matters perfectly 
clear; if I have so far failed that there can be a scintilla of 
doubt in your mind as to my exact meaning, please tell me 
so, and let me answer as fully as may be any questions that 
may be necessary to clear the matter up. It is most certainly 
not to anybody's advantage that an erroneous impression of 
your attitude should get abroad. When I wrote my first let- 
ter I believed that neither you nor Dr. Briggs would in any 
way permit your names to be used to give currency to false- 
hood : and it did not for one moment occur to me that you 



The Higher Critical Quandary 101 

would adopt or had adopted a theory of editorial responsi- 
bility which made this possible. I only abandoned this view 
because your own signatures forced me to do so; and it was 
obviously impossible for me to go behind them. But if on 
reflection you think that there is room for further considera- 
tion, please tell me to hold up the publication of the corre- 
spondence. Your final decision must affect the traditions of 
Anglo-American O. T. studies for a long time to come. 

Of course at any moment a rash reviewer may write a 
notice that will force my hand : but that is a risk that we may 
have to take : and in case of any difficulty I should venture to 
consult you as to the proper course to adopt if your final de- 
cision were still pending. 

Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 
The Rev. Canon Driver, D.D., F.B.A. 



Here followed two letters marked " not for publication " 
(one from Dr. Driver to the writer and a reply from the 
writer to Dr. Driver). The correspondence then continued 
as follows : — 

from dr. driver 

Ch. Ch., Oxford, 

Jan. 15. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am very much obliged to you for your letter, and appre- 
ciate your willingness to postpone the publication of the cor- 
respondence. Your letter is certainly very helpful; for it 
appears to me to both clear and narrow the issue. It is a 
satisfaction to find that we agree upon points on which Dr. 
Briggs and I had both supposed that we differed; and if we 



102 Pentateuchal Studies 

had had this letter before us when we drew up our reply, I 
have little doubt that it would have been a different one. I 
forwarded your letter to Dr. Briggs by yesterday's mail, at 
the same time telling him what I now thought: I also tele- 
graphed to him to defer sending an answer to my previous 
letter, till he received this. 

Your first letter was in my possession, though not actually 
before me, at the time of my signing our reply: but I had 
read it very carefully before sending it to Dr. Briggs, and 
examined the passages referred to in it. Both it and our 
reply are now with Dr. Briggs, as I thought that he might 
wish to refer to them : but I asked him to return them to me ; 
and as I cannot now do more till I hear from him, I do not 
think I need avail myself of your kind offer to supply me 
with a duplicate. 

I am acquainted with your writings, and have read con- 
siderable parts of them; indeed, I am indebted to you for 
sending me all the most important. I obtained your Essays 
in P. C.j as soon as it appeared; and have several times re- 
ferred to it, — I mean, on other points besides the present 
question. 

Believe me, 

Yours truly, 

S. R. Driver. 

FROM THE GENERAL EDITORS 

New York, February 28, 1911. 
Harold M. Wiener, Esquire. 

Dear Sir: — 

We beg to acknowledge your letter of January 6th in re- 
ply to ours of January 4th, as well as more personal commu- 
nications from you of January 11th and 13th. We regret 



The Higher Critical Quandary 103 

that the wide separation of the editors of the International 
Commentary, and the consequent time required for any; ex- 
change of views, has led to such a delay in our answer. - We 
now desire to say that we welcome the evidence which we 
believe we find in your letters that our conception of the 
duties of the editors of such a series does not, after all, differ 
very widely from yours. 

The issue seems to be narrowed down to this: whether or 
not in anything which Dr. Skinner has written, or omitted 
to write, in his Commentary on Genesis, he has laid himself 
open to just criticism on the part of the editors under the 
general rules which we seem to 'agree should govern editorial 
supervision in such cases. On this point we desire, first, to 
reaffirm the opinion which we have already expressed with 
regard to Dr. Skinner; and, secondly, to explain more ex- 
plicitly than we did before the grounds on which our opinion 
rests. 

First, there appears to us to be absolutely no evidence 
showing that Dr. Skinner wrote with any intention to deceive ; 
and we must emphatically deny that he did deceive, or that 
he wrote untruthfully, or that he omitted to mention any facts 
which were of any importance for the question at issue. 

Secondly, we base this opinion on the following considera- 
tions. We have both been familiar with the Septuagint for 
many years, and have compared large parts of it very minutely 
with the Massoretic text. As the result of this comparison 
we both hold that, where the two differ, the Massoretic text 
is to be preferred until the reading presupposed by the Sep- 
tuagint has been shown to be superior to it, especially by 
yielding a sense in better agreement with the context or by 
being preferable upon philological or grammatical grounds. 
One of us expressed substantially this view as long ago as 



104 Pentateuchal Studies 

1890 (Driver, Notes on Samuel, p. xl), and he repeated it 
in 1906 (Book of Jeremiah, ed. 1, p. xxv), "The principle 
which, I venture to think, will most generally commend itself 
is that of giving the Hebrew text the general preference, and 
of deviating from it only where the grounds are cogent, and 
the advantage gained is unmistakeable and clear." 

In such expressions as these we have proposed no novel 
doctrine, but we only voice the general judgment of sober 
modern scholars. Dr. Swete writes to the same effect 
(Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1900, p. 
444-5). We cannot, therefore, consistently with these prin- 
ciples, formed long ago, without any reference to the present 
controversy, admit that a variant reading presupposed either 
by all or by some MSS. of the Septuagint, possesses any value 
as against the Massoretic text, or even casts doubt upon the 
Massoretic text, until good cause has been shown for prefer- 
ring it. In our opinion this has not been done in the case of 
those variants which you blame Dr. Skinner for disregarding. 1 

The series of Commentaries of which we are editors are 
commentaries, not on the Septuagint or other versions, but 
on the Hebrew text of the various books of the Old Testa- 
ment ; and it is no instruction given by us to the contributors 
to register every variant reading presupposed by the versions. 
They are free to use their own discretion in mentioning such 
variants as they think suitable to their purpose; and they nat- 
urally mention chiefly such as suggest probable emendations 
of the Massoretic text or possess some other special interest. 
The readings which you censure Dr. Skinner for not noticing 
have not been shown to possess the smallest critical value, or 
to supply any sufficient ground for questioning the correctness 
of the Massoretic text. 

1 [It will be observed that in the above letter the general editors 



The Higher Critical Quandary 105 

You acknowledge that Dr. Skinner's treatment of the Sep- 

tuagint variants in the matter of the divine names in Genesis, 

do not cite any expression of the senior editor and first signatory, 
Dr. Briggs, as voicing what they term "the general judgment of 
sober modern scholars." After the correspondence had been closed, 
I looked up his works to see whether I could discover any state- 
ment of " these principles, formed long ago, without any reference 
to the present controversy," and I found that in point of fact there 
were a number of statements absolutely contradicting them. I will 
cite only three: — 

" In a very large number of instances the ancient Versions, es- 
pecially LXX and Vulgate are more correct than M.T. Modern 
scholars have greatly erred in a too exalted estimate of the cor- 
rectness of the unpointed Hebrew text in this regard. The meas- 
ures make it evident that even M.T. by its numerous additions 
and changes of the original, is as truly an interpretation of an 
older text as LXX and other ancient Versions" (Psalms (1906), 
vol. i. p. liii) ; "The Septuagint version of the Law . . . takes us 
back of the Maccabean text" (General Introduction to the Study 
of Holy Scripture (1899), p. 238); "There can be no doubt, as 
Robertson Smith states : ' It has gradually become clear to the vast 
majority of conscientious students that the Septuagint is really of 
the greatest value as a witness to the early state of the text' " (op. 
cit. y p. 229). 

In such expressions Dr. Briggs is in fact supported by nearly 
all the " sober modern scholars " who have contributed volumes on 
the Old Testament to the International Critical Commentary at 
the invitation of the general editors. Thus Dr. Toy writes of the 
LXX in Proverbs, " It represents in general an older text than 
that of the received Hebrew tradition" (Proverbs, p. xxxii). I 
do not dilate on the question now, as I wish to see whether the 
general editors will really venture to exercise the right of further 
discussion which they have specifically reserved in the letter of 
May 3; but I hope to return to it before long. [See infra, No. 11.] 

Meanwhile I desire to lay stress on the following points: (1) For 
a century and a half the critics followed Astruc's clue practically 
without textual investigation; (2) When recent textual researches 
had rendered their position insecure, Dr. Skinner deliberately mis- 
represented the facts in an attempt to bolster up the documentary 
theory; (3) When the attention of the general editors was drawn 
to this, they took no steps to undeceive the public, which had been 
deceived under the cover and sanction of their names, and put 
forward the contentions contained in the joint letters. — H. M. W.] 



106 Pentateuchal Studies 

which are put forward by Professor Eerdmans, is from his 
point of view sufficient. If he holds, as we believe he has a 
right to hold, that the larger number of variants claimed e.g. 
by Professor Schlogl has no critical worth, why should he 
mention them? It appears to us that Professor Schlogl is 
following altogether unsound principles of textual criticism, 
and that his conclusions with regard to the Hebrew text of 
Genesis are destitute of the smallest probability. 

If Dr. Skinner does not specifically state that some He- 
brew variants agree with the Septuagint, it is simply because 
the history of the Hebrew text shows that such agreements 
are presumably late and possibly accidental, and have no 
bearing upon the original text. Evidence from the Samaritan 
Pentateuch is, of course, of a different kind, but so meagre as 
to decide nothing in the matter of literary analysis. This be- 
ing the case, we cannot agree that Dr. Skinner has withheld 
from his readers any facts relevant in reality to the question 
at issue. He has done nothing more than is done in general 
by commentators on the Old Testament, who habitually take 
no notice of the readings of the versions which they consider 
to be without value for the emendation of the Massoretic text 
and to possess no other special interest. 

In the dialogues in the book of Job, as is well known, the 
names God and Shaddai — except in 12 : 9 — are uniformly 
employed. The Septuagint, however, in most cases represents 
both these names by Lord: but the fact — as we imagine 
scholars would universally agree — affords no justification for 
correcting, or even for questioning in regard to these names, 
the existing Hebrew text of the book. 

In this connection we may refer to Dr. Skinner's treatment 
of Genesis 1G : 11. It appears to us to be not at all clear that 
in this passage God is the true reading of the Hebrew. The 



The Higher Critical Quandary 107 

stress lies upon the verb heard, not upon the particular divine 
name employed ; and in the explanation of the name " Sam- 
uel " in I Samuel 1 : 20 the Tetfagrammaton is used. 

It is, however, not possible for us, nor do we think it is 
necessary, to cite further illustrations of our view. Even if 
we thought that Dr. Skinner's judgment had been at fault in 
the matter of material selected, we should not necessarily as 
editors have felt called upon to insist that his judgment should 
yield to ours, convinced as we are that he has presented all 
essential facts that bear upon the question before him. 

We naturally read the sheets of our contributors and make 
suggestions upon them, but we do not consider it to be our 
duty to instruct them how they are to deal with every ques- 
tion which arises. But for the reasons which we have now 
explained, we were satisfied with Dr. Skinner's treatment of 
the present case. 

We beg to remain, 

Yours faithfully, 

C. A. Briggs. 
S. R. Driver. 

to the general editors 

9 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

To the General Editors of the 15 March 191L 

" International Critical Commentary," 

per the Rev. C\non Driver, D.D., F.B.A., etc. 
Gentlemen : — 

I thank you for your letter bearing date February 28 1911 
to hand this morning. It was not necessary to apologise for 
the delay in answering as I most fully realise your difficulties. 

It appears to me that your letter intertwines two sets of con- 



108 Pentateuchal Studies 

siderations : first, the views you yourselves hold on textual 
criticism, and secondly, the issue of Dr. Skinner's honesty or 
dishonesty. I should be delighted to discuss the former with 
either or both of you on any other occasion, and not the less 
because I notice that your letter avoids many germane consid- 
erations that I have advanced in the articles to which your 
attention has been drawn; but I feel that I should be failing 
in my duty on this occasion, if I were to enter on any line of 
argument that might for one moment obscure the real issues. 
Either the ordinary rules of good faith apply to the Interna- 
tional Critical Commentary and the conduct of its contributors 
or else they do not : and my present task is to strive to make 
that so clear that no confusion shall be possible. 

1. In my first letter I wrote " In discussing the Divine ap- 
pellations in Genesis Dr. Skinner only records 50 cases of 
divergences from the Massoretic text and bases his arguments 
on these. In fact he well knew that the actual number was 
very much greater, and he had twice had his attention drawn 
to this in public. . . . Thus we have here both suppressio veri 
and suggestio falsi." You do not now dispute the accuracy 
of my charge, nor could you, for I have proved it up to the 
hilt. But you say : " We cannot . . . admit that a variant read- 
ing presupposed either by all or by some MSS. of the Septu- 
agint, possesses any value as against the Massoretic text, or 
even casts doubt upon the Massoretic text, until good cause 
has been shown for preferring it. In our opinion this has 
not been done in the case of those variants which you blame 
Dr. Skinner for disregarding. . . . The readings which you 
censure Dr. Skinner for not noticing have not been shown to 
possess the smallest critical value, or to supply any sufficient 
ground for questioning .the correctness of the Massoretic 
text." Now these opinions would be open to discussion on 



The Higher Critical Quandary 109 

the question of scholarship, but on the question o>f good faith 
they do not seem to me to have any bearing for three reasons : 
(a) Dr. Skinner himself, as I pointed out in my letter of the 
6th January, adopted one of these variants which in your 
opinion " have not been shown to possess the smallest critical 
value " in another portion of his commentary. You may hold 
that he was mistaken in so doing: but as he did adopt it you 
cannot hold that he entertained an honest opinion that it pos- 
sessed no critical value. This alone disposes of the argument 
that " If he holds, as we believe he has a right to hold, that 
the larger number of variants claimed . . . has no critical 
worth " he is under no obligation to mention them. One at 
any rate of that large number seemed to him so valuable that 
he preferred it to the Massoretic text. In view of this I 
scarcely know what to make of your emphatic denial " that 
he did deceive, or that he wrote untruthfully, or that he omit- 
ted to mention any facts which were of any importance for 
the question at issue." 

(b) Dr. Skinner himself most emphatically admits what 
you say you cannot, viz: that a variant reading presupposed 
either by all or by some MSS. of the Septuagint possesses 
value. " It cannot be denied," he says, " that the facts ad- 
duced by these writers import an element o»f uncertainty into 
the analysis, so far as it depends on the criterion of the di- 
vine names." And he then goes on to put forward the thor- 
oughly disingenuous numerical argument based on the number 
50 for the variants. This argument itself presupposes that 
the variants have importance and if that be so of the 50, it is 
so of the much larger number that existed to his knowledge. 
A writer who held that the variants were of no importance 
could not have written the numerical argument. 

(c) Dr. Skinner in the Expository Times and you your- 



110 Pentateuchal Studies 

selves in this letter of the 28th February place reliance on 
the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet he here ignored its eight 
variants. 

To return to my old illustration of the apples. If a man 
tells me that he has three apples when to his knowledge he 
has six,. I cannot regard his statement as ingenuous. If his 
friends then urge that the matter is of no consequence because 
in their opinion it is immaterial whether he has any apples at 
all, that can make no difference to the question of his truth- 
fulness. If they admit that some of the apples possessed some 
sort of importance while the others did not, that still leaves 
my opinion on the original issue unaffected: and if the man 
himself said that his possession of not more than three apples 
was important, I conclude that with the best of goodwill his 
friends are unable to offer any excuse that will hold water. 

2. In my original letter I wrote " Dr. Skinner argues on 
the assumption that differences might be explained by causes 
purely internal to the Septuagint and says not a word of any 
Hebrew (or other) corroboration of Septuagintal readings. 
He is here deliberately arguing on a false issue after his at- 
tention had twice been publicly drawn to the true issue." You 
say (a) that the history of the Hebrew text shows that such 
agreements are presumably late and possibly accidental: (b) 
that the Samaritan evidence is meagre: and (c) that " He has 
done nothing more than is done in general by commentators 
on the Old Testament, who habitually take no notice of the 
readings of the versions which they consider ... to possess 
no other special interest." Now I differ from you as to the 
point of scholarship, but the difference is not very striking 
since the high water mark of your assurance is reached in 
the expressions ' presumably late and possibly accidental " — 
not even " probably accidental." If you really think phrases 



The Higher Critical Quandary 111 

like this sufficient to rule out inconvenient evidence, we are 
separated on a fundamental principle of research : but putting 
this aside " the possibly accidental " Hebrew variants, plus the 
" meagre " Samaritan variants, plus the evidence of Aquila, 
Hexaplar notes, the Targum, etc., which you do not even 
mention, together constitute a body of evidence to which 
such epithets as " presumably late," " possibly accidental," 
and " meagre " have no application. But even this does not 
touch the main point. Dr. Skinner knew that this body of 
evidence existed : it is impossible to contend that variants that 
rebutted his argument as to corruptions, etc., of the Greek 
text possessed no " special interest " for the question he was 
considering. You will correct me if 1 am mistaken, but so 
far as I know O. T. commentators generally would not be 
prepared to concede that they habitually omit all mention of 
inconvenient facts and then argue on the basis that no such 
facts exist. Here again it seems to me indubitable that Dr. 
Skinner wrote untruthfully and that he omitted to mention 
facts which were of importance for the question at issue. 
That he did deceive is shown by the facts adduced in my first 
letter. 

You cite my admission about Eerdmans : let me supply the 
context: "As a. matter of fact Dr. Skinner's note would have 
been a sufficient reply to Eerdmans: but as a reply to me it 
was entirely, dishonest. You may say ' well, even if there 
are 10,000 variants in Genesis, that does not alter my view of 
the documentary theory because my principles of textual crit- 
icism are different.' You cannot say that if to your knowl- 
edge there are 189 variants, including some Hebrew vari- 
ants, it is honest to lead readers to believe that there are not 
more than 50, or that they may be due to purely Greek 
causes." 



112 Pentateuchal Studies 

I have striven to keep this letter as much as possible to the 
true issues. To me it seems that what we are debating goes 
to the very root of the claim of the I. C. C. to be regarded as 
in any sense scientific. To my mind it is a pre-condition of all 
scientific work that the investigator shall strive to tell the 
truth to the best of his ability. I am not sure that I under- 
stand even now whether you agree with this or not, for you 
seem to me to rest your case not on whether Dr. Skinner 
spoke the truth, or even on whether he spoke the truth on 
matters that he himself thought important, but on whether 
you think the matters on which he failed to speak the truth 
important. To my mind this is the abandonment of the prin- 
ciple of truthfulness — the erecting of some standard of be- 
lief on critical questions as a canon that overrides the obliga- 
tion to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth on the matters discussed. And herein lies some of the 
gravity of this correspondence. If the letter of February 28 
represents your last word on this subject, the most authorita- 
tive Anglo-American O. T. critics reject ethical standards 
that are universally accepted in other fields of learning. 

Believe me, 

Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 

FROM THE GENERAL EDITORS 

Dear Sir: — 

It appears to us that no good purpose will be served by 
prolonging this correspondence. It is not easy for scholars 
to meet the charge of untruthfulness patiently. We have en- 
deavored to do so, assuming that the charg'e was based on a 
misapprehension on your part. But we do not think we should 
go further. We of course accept your major premise, that 
untruthfulness is reprehensible, but this seems to be almost 



The Higher Critical Quandary 113 

the entire extent of our common ground. We deny abso- 
lutely your minor premise, that untruthfulness is shown 
in Dr. Skinner's book. The question between us does not 
relate to the elementary principles of honesty, but to the 
elementary principles of textual criticism. You seem to 
regard virtually any variant of any Version or of any 
MS. of a Version, of whatever date or character, as superior 
to M. T. This is not a principle accepted among scholars 
at large; in fact, as far as we know, it is confined to 
Schlogl and yourself. It is obvious that, under the circum- 
stances, little progress can be looked for in this discussion, 
and we must beg you to excuse us from continuing it. We 
of course, reserve the right to treat the issues of scholarship 
involved in whatever manner we may think proper. 

Very truly yours, 

C. A. Briggs. 
May 3, 1911. S. R. Driver. 

9 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 

4 May 1911. 
To the General Editors of the 

" International Critical Commentary." 
Gentlemen : — 

I thank you for your letter of May 3 and have only to add 
one thing, viz. that you are mistaken in your interpretation 
of my textual attitude — I think also in your interpretation 
of that of Professor Schlogl. So far as I am aware I have 
never v/ritten anything that will bear the construction that 
any variant of any Version or of any MS. of a Version of 
whatever date or character is superior to M. T., and certainly 
that is not my opinion. Yours faithfully, 

Harold M. Wiener. 



X 

THE HIGHER CRITICAL QUANDARY (II) 
A CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. GORDON 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1912.] 

from dr. gordon 

Presbyterian College, 

Montreal, Aug. 25, 1911. 

To the Editor of the " Bibliotheca Sacra." 

Dear Sir: — 

I have just read the correspondence in your July number, 

arising out of my review of Dr. Skinner's " Genesis." I have 

no desire to enter into the controversy further than to disclaim 

Mr. Wiener's suggestion that I have been either " deceived " 

or " misled " by Dr. Skinner in regard to the questions under 

dispute. I have long been familiar with the critical problem, 

and written not a little on the subject. To the recent assaults 

on the " prevalent hypothesis " I have given very considerable 

attention. When I wrote my review of Dr. Skinner's book I 

was perfectly familiar with the articles of Schlogl and others 

in the Expository Times. Since reading the correspondence, 

I have refreshed my knowledge of Schlogl's argument, and 

still fail to see how so violent a cutting of the knot can be 

held to solve a problem which involves very much more than 

mere alternation of the Divine names in Genesis. On Schlogl's 

critical principles, indeed, one might prove or disprove any 

given hypothesis at will. The modern commentator on 

" Genesis " has such a mass of really important matter to deal 

with, that he may surely be permitted to pass over in silence 

" evidence " that seems to him to have no vital bearing on the 

114 



The Higher Critical Quandary 115 

case, without being compelled to face charges of " suppres- 
sion of facts, suggestion of falsehood, ignoring of arguments." 
I shall be glad if you insert this disclaimer in some forth- 
coming number of the Bibliotheca Sacra. 
Yours faithfully, 

Alex. R. Gordon. 

FROM MR. WIENER 

By the courtesy of the editor I have been able to see Dr. 
Gordon's letter before its publication. I need only point out 
that it leaves my charges absolutely untouched. I never ac- 
cused Dr. Skinner of deceit for not mentioning Schlogl's 
argument: I charged him with deceit for having represented 
to his readers (1) that there were not more than 50 variants 
in Genesis, and (2) that the Septuagintal variants could all 
be due to intra-Greek causes when to his knowledge both 
these representations were false. If Dr. Gordon is prepared 
to say that he disbelieved Dr. Skinner's representations on 
these points when he read them, then he was neither misled 
nor deceived: but if (as I think his Expositor article proves) 
he in fact believed them, then I fear he was deceived. But this 
much I should like to add. In my opinion Dr. Gordon was 
entitled to suppose that Dr. Skinner was telling the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth: and 1 1 meed scarcely 
say that far from thinking that Dr. Gordon's acting on this 
supposition in any way casts a slur on him! it was the natural 
thing for him to do without troubling at the time to re- 
fresh his memory as to my articles. It was because Dr. 
Gordon was so manifestly an honest and competent writer on 
the subject that I felt compelled to take action in the matter. 
Dr. Gordon's honesty and competence are the measure of Dr. 
Skinner's intellectual dishonesty. 



116 Pentateuchal Studies 

I take this opportunity of reminding Dr. Gordon that in 
spite of " the very considerable attention " he has given to 
" recent assaults on the prevalent hypothesis," neither he nor 
anybody ejse has yet ventured to deal with the other points 
made in my Expositor reply to him — the original date of 
Gen. x. 19, the practice of non-sacrificial slaughter in Israel 
long before the various critical dates for Deuteronomy, and 
the inability of Wellhausen and his followers to distinguish 
between a mound and a house as the basis of the prevalent 
reconstruction of the history. 

Harold M. Wiener. 

8 September 1911. 

from dr. gordon 

Presbyterian College, 
Montreal, Sept. 21, 1911. 
The Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am obliged to you for your kindness in sending me a 
copy of Mr. Wiener's letter before publication. I cannot how- 
ever allow my " honesty " to be made the measure of Dr. 
Skinner's "dishonesty." In the matter in question, we both 
occupy the common ground of scholarship. As I said before, 
the modern commentator has such a mass of really important 
matter to deal with, that he must necessarily exercise a wise 
discretion. This applies to his citation of variants from the 
Versions as well as to references to literary authorities. Some 
of these are valuable : but many more are mere phenomena of 
greater or less interest. The latter group the textual critic 
will pass over without any necessary mention. Dr. Skinner 
has cited the Septuagintal variants in Genesis as registered 
by so careful students of the Septuagint as Redpath and 



The Higher Critical Quandary 117 

Eerdmans. Mr. Wiener adduces a further " enormous num- 
ber of passages," where " some Septuagintal authority differs 
from the ordinary LXX. reading." Dr. Skinner does not 
recognise these latter variants as sufficiently authenticated or 
important to enter into the question. In arriving at that 
opinion, and acting on it, he is just as entitled to be called 
" honest " as one who urges the importance of the whole 
list. The question is really one of opinion, or critical judg- 
ment, not of " honesty." And one cannot but regret that Mr. 
Wiener continues to press his charges against so simple, sin- 
cere, and absolutely candid a man as Dr. Skinner. 
Yours faithfully, 

Alex. R. Gordon. 

FROM MR. WIENER 

I have carefully read Dr. Gordon's letter, but fail to see 
that he has a single word to say with regard to the other 
points I made against him in the Expositor. Is he unable to 
produce any reply at all? Or does he think it immaterial 
whether the results of the Wellhausen school are correct to 
within a thousand years or so, and whether or not their main 
theory rests on nothing more substantial than their inability 
to distinguish between a mound and a house? 

Turning to the question of Dr. Skinner everybody must 
sympathise with the motives that prompt Dr. Gordon, but 
such sympathy must not allow us to condone a deliberate at- 
tempt to deceive the public. In my former reply I pointed 
out that I had " charged Dr. Skinner with deceit for having 
represented to his readers (1) that there were not more than 
50 variants in Genesis, and (2) that the Septuagintal variants 
could all be due to intra-Greek causes when to his knowledge 
both these representations were false." On the second point 



118 Pentateuchal Studies 

Dr. Gordon says nothing at all. I therefore challenge him 
to answer the following direct question with a plain " aye " or 
"no": (a) Did he believe Dr. Skinner's representations on 
the point when he read them? If he did believe them, then 
he was deceived, for to deceive only means to procure an in- 
nocent person to believe a representation which is false to the 
knowledge of the person who procures the belief. 

On the first point however Dr. Gordon attempts to argue 
the question. According to him " Dr. Skinner does not recog- 
nise variants other than those registered by Redpath or Eerd- 
mans as sufficiently authenticated or important to enter into 
the question." That this is untrue is shown by the fact that 
Dr. Skinner himself has in another context actually adopted 
a Syriac reading that is not registered by Redpath or Eerd- 
mans. Next, as even Dr. Skinner's own general editor ob- 
serves, " neither Redpath's nor Eerdmans' list is exact " 
[Driver, Genesis, 8th ed., p. XLIV, note]. Again if Dr. Gor- 
don will read the contributions of Redpath and Eerdmans, he 
will see that neither of them has used Lucian or the evidence 
of Field's Hexapla as to the original readings of the Septua- 
gint as found by Origen. Will he venture to say that any 
competent scholar could honestly reject either the one or the 
other as " not sufficiently authenticated or important " ? Nor 
again is it true to say that " the question is really one of 
opinion or critical judgment," for Dr. Skinner put it forward 
as a question of fact. His argument was that while the facts 
adduced by a number of writers of whom I was one, imported 
an element of uncertainty into the analysis, the significance of 
the facts was greatly overrated. He then alleged that so far 
as he had observed no attention was paid to the proportion of 
divergences to agreements as between LXX and M.T., that 
the Divine names occurred about 340 times in Genesis, that 



The Higher Critical Quandary 119 

the total deviations registered by Redpath numbered 50 while 
according to Eerdmans they were 49 i.e. little more than one- 
seventh of the whole. He then proceeded : " Is it so certain 
that that degree of divergence invalidates a documentary 
analysis founded on so much larger a field of undisputed 
readings ? " I therefore challenge Dr. Gordon to answer the 
following direct .questions also with a plain ' aye ' or ' no ' : 
(b) Did he when he read these representations believe (i) that 
the facts adduced by the writers of whom I was one were lim- 
ited to at most 50 passages in Genesis; (ii) that I had over- 
looked the proportion of divergences to agreements or that 
Dr. Skinner had reasonable cause to suppose that I had over- 
looked it; and (iii) that save in little more than one-seventh 
of the whole number of occurrences the readings were " un- 
disputed"? If Dr. Gordon can answer questions (a) and (b) 
in the negative, he is entitled to say that he cannot allow his 
honesty to be made the measure of Dr. Skinner's dishonesty; 
but not otherwise. 

Two other points made by Dr. Gordon must be shortly no- 
ticed. He says with truth that the modern commentator has 
such a mass of really important matter to deal with that he 
must exercise a wise discretion. That however does not jus- 
tify him in making false representations on a matter with 
which in the exercise of that wise discretion he decides to 
deal. It is as if in reply to a charge that A had lied on a 
particular question, somebody were to say 'Ah, but look at 
the mass of things from among which he had to select topics 
for conversation ' ! Secondly Dr. Gordon calls Dr. Skinner 
" simple, sincere and absolutely candid " and regrets that I 
should continue to press my charges. Well, I will tell him 
something of my experience. I find that the Wellhausen 
theories are supported by a large number of professors in 



120 Pentateuchal Studies 

various parts of the world, who have enormous power by vir- 
tue of their positions, the numbers of their supporters and the 
extent to which they and their supporters control the general 
and technical press. That power is used with the utmost un- 
scrupulousness to prevent any opponent of theirs from getting 
a fair hearing and to induce their pupils and the general pub- 
lic to believe that their theories are unchallengeably true. 
There are many ways of being dishonest, and as a general 
rule the Wellhausen critics use more caution than Dr. Skin- 
ner has done: but with a few striking exceptions they fall as 
far short of the standards of conduct observed by honorable 
laymen as does Dr. Skinner himself. As a result I have been 
driven to adopt the course that I have followed in this instance 
to expose the methods by which the Wellhausen theory is main- 
tained. If Dr. Gordon or any other critic finds this plain 
statement of fact unpalatable, the remedy for this state of 
affairs lies in his own hands. Let him take the works of the 
conservative writers and tackle them honestly, grappling with 
each point in turn, refuting it or admitting its validity pub- 
licly. Then and only then will he have a right to pronounce 
an opinion as to who is or is not " simple, sincere, and abso- 
lutely candid/ 7 

Harold M. Wiener. 
Lincoln's Inn, 6 October 1911. 

from dr. gordon 

Presbyterian College, 
Montreal, Nov. 18, 1911. 
The Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra. 

Dear Sir : — 

I am in receipt of yours of the 15th, enclosing Mr. Wie- 
ner's rejoinder to my last letter. 

As I entered this controversy punely to make a personal 



The Higher Critical Quandary 121 

statement, I must respectfully decline to be drawn into a dis- 
cussion of the general critical problem of the Pentateuch. 
Further, I have to observe that the questions Mr. Wiener pro- 
pounds for me are all based on the gratuitous assumption that 
Dr. Skinner is dishonest because he happens to differ from 
Mr. Wiener on what is to be considered valid evidence. They 
virtually resolve themselves into this. Did I believe Dr. Skin- 
ner to be telling the truth when he was really lying ? — a ques- 
tion that can no more be answered by a simple " Yes " or 
" No " than the old subtlety of the logic books, " Have you 
left off beating your mother?" I must content myself then 
with the general statement — and with this the correspondence 
must close, so far as I am concerned — that in my judgment 
Dr. Skinner has, within the limits imposed by his Commen- 
tary, given a perfectly fair presentation of the problems of 
Genesis, including the relation between the Massoretic text 
and the Versions. Repeated study of his work confirms me 
in the impression that he has given all due consideration to 
the " facts " brought forward by Mr. Wiener, and has ap- 
praised them at their true value. 

Yours faithfully, 

Alex. R. Gordon. 

FROM MR. WIENER 

Every reader will be able to see for himself that Dr. Gor- 
don refuses to answer plain straightforward questions, and 
this provides a fresh example — this time in public — of the 
methods by which it is sought to maintain the current critical 
theories. For myself I Confess that I am disappointed, but 
not in the least surprised. Dr. Gordon's methods can of 
course make no difference to the triumph of truth : but it ap- 
pears to me that they reveal a lamentable state of affairs. 



122 Pentateuchal Studies 

For what are the questions about Dr. Skinner that Dr. Gor- 
don refuses to answer in response to my challenge? They 
are these: — (a) Did Dr. Gordon believe Dr. Skinner's repre- 
sentations that the Septuagintal variants could all be due to 
intra-Greek causes when he (Dr. Gordon) read them? 

(b) Did Dr. Gordon when he read Dr. Skinner's represen- 
tations as to the number of variants in Genesis believe (i) that 
the facts adduced by the writers of whom I was one were 
limited to at most 50 passages in Genesis, (ii) that I had 
overlooked the proportion of divergences to agreements or 
that Dr. Skinner had reasonable cause to suppose that I had 
overlooked it, and (iii) that save in little more than one- 
seventh of the whole number of occurrences the readings were 
" undisputed " ? 

I asked Dr. Gordon whether he believed Dr. Skinner, noth- 
ing more : I did not ask him whether he believed Dr. Skinner 
to be telling the truth when he was really lying : for Dr. Skin- 
ner's mendacity had been put beyond all doubt by the earlier 
correspondence with the general editors : and the point at 
issue with Dr. Gordon was simply whether the latter had be- 
lieved the statements which had been proved false and so been 
deceived. Dr. Gordon's only reply is to say in effect " I can 
no more answer ' yes ' or ' no ' to questions whether I believed 
Dr. Skinner's statements when I read them than I can answer 
■ yes ' or ' no ' to the question ' Have you left off beating your 
mother?'" Qui est-ce qu'on trotnpe ici? 

Dr. Gordon has of course rendered a very real service to 
the cause of truth by making it quite plain that he dare not 
commit himself to a statement that he believed Dr. Skinner. 
Whether he has also rendered Dr. Skinner or his general ed- 
itors any real service thereby is a question that I do not feel 
called upon to discuss : and I leave my readers to form their 



The Higher Critical Quandary 123 

own judgments on the fitness of professors who act as these 
critics have done to be entrusted with the education of youth. 
Some things are too plain to need emphasising. 

I should be sorry to lose this opportunity of once more re- 
minding Dr. Gordon that he has as yet totally failed to pro- 
duce any reply to the points I put to him over a year ago 
during the intervals of leisure in which he was not engaged 
in making personal statements. As I pointed out in my first 
communication those points are the original date of Gen. x. 19, 
the practice of non-sacrificial slaughter in Israel long before 
the various critical dates for Deuteronomy, and the inability 
of Wellhausen and his followers to distinguish between a 
mound and a house as the basis of the prevalent reconstruc- 
tion of history. What shall be said of men who propagate 
views the correctness of which to within a thousand years 
they are unable to defend ? 

Harold M. Wiener. 

Lincoln's Inn, 29 November 1911. 



XI 



SOME ASPECTS OF THE CONSERVATIVE TASK IN 
PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM (II) 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1912.] 

In the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1911, the present 
writer discussed " Some Aspects of the Conservative Task in 
Pentateuchal Criticism." x The object of the present paper is 
to consider these further in the light of what has occurred 
since that article was written. It cannot be contended that the 
conditions of the problem are unaltered or that no new light 
has been thrown on the duty of conservatives by what has 
happened in the interval. 

It may first be observed that, whether we look at the lights 
or the shadows of the picture, conservatism has made progress. 
There is more and better conservative literature in the world 
than before. The emergence of Mr. J. S. Griffiths as a new 
conservative writer is a most cheering sign of the times. His 
excellent " Problem of Deuteronomy " is a welcome addition 
to the literature of the subject, and strengthens the position 
of conservatives throughout the English-speaking world. Dr. 
W St. Clair Tisdall has published an admirable brochure 
entitled " Why I am Not a Higher Critic," which has been 
warmly received in more than one country. The Jewish Quar- 
terly Review, formerly an organ of the higher criticism, ,has 
been converted to sane and sober views on biblical scholar- 
ship, and is now conducted with a learning and an ability that 
bid fair to make it one of the most valuable of theological 
periodicals to all who are interested in Old Testament Studies : 
1 See supra, No. 1. 
124 



Pentateuchal Criticism 125 

it is not the only periodical that has shown signs of turning 
from the higher critical vagaries. In Germany, too, indi- 
cations of change from the fashionable hypothesis are not 
wanting. Pastor W. Moller has at last broken with the docu- 
mentary theory; and though his book "Wider den Bann der 
Quellenscheidung " may at first shock the delicate sensibili- 
ties of those who hold that orthodoxy consists in the unques- 
tioning acceptance of a theory that makes the Pentateuch a 
cento of literary forgeries, it cannot in the long run fail to 
assist in shaking the position which that theory now occupies 
in the Universities of Northern Europe. 1 Here, too, mention 
should be made of Dr. Aage Schmidt's " Gedanken iiber die 
Entwicklung der Religion auf Grund der babylonischen Quel- 
len," 2 a monograph that is distinguished by the conservative 
results to which a comprehensive survey of the ancient evi- 
dence as to religious development has led the learned author. 
The true weakness of conservatives does not lie in any inher- 
ent difficulties of the conservative case or in any faults of its 
champions. On the contrary, they possess the qualities that are 
necessary for the vindication of their views. They have the 
learning; they have the ability; more important than either, 
they have the strength of character. Unfortunately — and it 
is here that their whole difficulty lies — they have not the 
necessary organization, though in this respect they are rap- 

1 Since the above was written, a Dutch scholar, Dr. A. Troelstra, 
has published a brilliant and successful piece of work "De Organ- 
ische Eenheid van het Oude Testament" (Leiden: A. L. Vlieger, 
1912). It is an inaugural lecture delivered to the Ley den students. 
An English translation appeared in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 
1912. With Eerdmans and Troelstra both lecturing at the premier 
Dutch University, the prospects of the documentary theory in Hol- 
land are not of the rosiest. 

"Leipzig, 1911. 



126 Pentateuchal Studies 

idly improving. Not so very long- ago the lack of inter- 
communication between the conservative scholars of various 
countries and creeds was extremely striking; and though 
there is a growing tendency to remedy this, the evil effects 
of the state of affairs that long prevailed have not yet passed 
away. The fault does not lie with the conservatives. It is 
due to the control exercised over almost the whole of the 
technical press in the various countries by the higher critics. 
Hereafter I shall have to speak of the darker aspects of the 
higher critical tactics, and it will be seen how that control 
must operate for the suppression of truth. Fortunately, as 
already stated, it is no longer so complete as formerly: and 
it cannot be doubted that, as conservatism obtains a hearing, 
the higher critical positions will be seen, by increasingly large 
numbers of people, to be untenable. The rate of progress 
made in the diffusion of sounder ideas is cumulative. 

Side by side with these phenomena is the important fact that 
many lifelong critics are becoming exceedingly doubtful as 
to the soundness of their views. From the nature of the case 
one hears more of this in private than in public, for a critic 
who oecomes doubtful as to his position tends to indulge in 
silent meditation, or private discussions with his friends, 
rather than to take the public into his confidence with respect 
to his mental perplexities. It must be admitted that the habit 
often has irritating tendencies. A man will write me that he 
is shaken on a particular point, but without making any public 
statement or modifying his published views. Then other peo- 
ple who know nothing of his private admissions will proceed 
to shout aloud about the assured results of modern criticism, 
in reliance on those very published views about which their 
author has begun to entertain doubts. That sort of thing is 
very annoying. But, in the case of the more honest critics, it 



PentcDteuchal Criticism 127 

is merely a transition stage; for, sooner or later, they must 
give public expression to the change in their attitude. 

Unfortunately, however, the limitation expressed in the 
phrase " in the case of the more honest critics " is a very nar- 
row one. 

In showing this it will be convenient to begin with the case 
of Dr. Charles Augustus Briggs. As stated in a footnote to 
the published correspondence with the general Editors of the 
International Critical Commentary, 1 I have waited to deal 
further with this, because I wished to give them an opportu- 
nity of exercising the right of further reply which they were 
so careful to reserve. I did this, although I realized at the 
time that they were indulging in what is popularly called 
bluff, and I have no doubt that anybody who will carefully 
and impartially examine the facts that I am about to quote 
will see that this was so. 

Under date the 28th of February, 1911, Doctors Briggs and 
Driver wrote to me as follows : " We have both been familiar 
with the Septuagint for many years, and have compared large 
parts of it very minutely with the Massoretic text. As the 
result of this comparison we both hold that, where the two 
differ, the Massoretic text is to be preferred until the reading 
presupposed by the Septuagint has been shown to be superior 
to it, especially by yielding a sense in better agreement with 
the context or by being preferable upon philological or gram- 
matical grounds. ... In such expressions as these we have 
proposed no novel doctrine, but we only voice the general 
judgment of sober modern scholars. . . . We cannot, there- 
fore, consistently with these principles, formed long ago, 
without any reference to the present controversy, admit that 
a variant reading presupposed either by all or by some MSS. 
1 See supra, p. 104. 



128 Pentateuchal Studies 

of the Septuagint, possesses any value as against the Masso- 
retic text, or even casts doubt upon the Massoretic text until 
good cause has been shown for preferring it." These extracts 
contain the main reason for the inability of the general ed- 
itors to discuss the scholarly part of my contentions, because, 
in truth and in fact, they are absolutely contradicted by the 
published writings of Dr. Briggs himself and of those whom 
the general editors have regarded as sufficiently sober modern 
scholars to be intrusted with the preparation of volumes of 
the International Critical Commentary. 

First, as to Dr. Briggs himself: In the year 1899 he pub- 
lished a work entitled " General Introduction to the Study of 
Holy Scripture : The Principles, Methods, History, and Re- 
sults of its Several Departments and of the Whole." The pref- 
ace explains that in 1883 another volume had appeared, entitled 
" Biblical Study, its Principles, Methods, and History, together 
with a Catalogue of Books of Reference," and that the " Gen- 
eral Introduction " is a new book incorporating the material 
of the earlier work, which in its turn had gathered up the 
work of the preceding fourteen years. Thus the " General 
Introduction " is the product of thirty years of work at the 
subjects with which it deals, and must be held to incorporate 
" principles formed long ago without any reference to the pres- 
ent controversy." It would be impossible to contradict the 
doctrines laid down in the joint letter more thoroughly than 
is done by Dr. Briggs in this work and in his Commentary on 
the Psalms. 

The following extracts will give a pretty clear idea of his 
real position: — 

" There can be no doubt that Rabbi Akiba and his asso- 
ciates at Jamnia not only fixed the Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment, but also established the first official Hebrew text of the 



Pentateuchal Criticism 129 

Canon. There is a fixture in the consonantal text of Hebrew 
Manuscripts from the second century onwards, which can be 
accounted for only by the establishment at that time of such 
an official text. This text zvas established in troublous times, 
when it zvas impossible to give the time and painstaking 
required for such an undertaking. There zvas no leisure to 
correct even the plainest mistakes. It was made by the com- 
parison of a few manuscripts. Tradition speaks of three, in 
cases of disagreement the majority of two always determin- 
ing the correct reading" 1 (General Introduction, p. 175). 

" The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament lagged be- 
hind the Nezu Testament. And the reason of it is, that schol- 
ars long hesitated to go back of the Massoretic text. . . . There 
can be no doubt, as Robertson Smith states: 'It has gradually* 
become clear to the vast majority of conscientious students 
that the Septuagint is really of the greatest value as a witness 
to the early state of the text' " r {op. cit., p. 229). 

" The study of the text of the Old Testament has been ad- 
vanced in recent years by a great number of scholars in Ger- 
many, France, Switzerland, Holland, Austria, Italy, Great 
Britain, and America; scholars of all faiths, Jew and Chris- 
tian, Roman Catholic and Protestant. They have vied with 
one another in this fundamental work of biblical study. It 
has now become practically impossible for any scholarly work 
to be done on the Old Testament without the use of all the 
resources of Textual Criticism for a sure foundation" x {op. 
cit., p. 230). 

" The next step in Textual Criticism is to ascertain the 
original autographs of the Canon of the Law and the Prophets, 
when they were first collected and fixed. The Septuagint ver- 
sion of the Law and the Prophets, and possibly also of some 

x My italics. 



130 Pentateuchal Studies 

of the writings, takes us back of the Maccabean text" 1 {op. 
cit., p. 238). 

Dr. Briggs has, moreover, contributed to the International 
Critical Commentary a work on the Psalter (dated 1906). 
The preface contains the following remarks that appear to be 
material to any consideration of the textual opinions expressed 
in the body of the work : " This commentary is the fruit of 
forty years of labour. ... I have spared no pains upon the 
text of the Psalter, not only in the study of the Versions, but 
also in the detection and elimination of the glosses in the 
search for the original texts as they came from their authors. 
... A public Version, in my opinion, should be less pedantic 
and literal than the Revised Version, and not so slavish in its 
adherence to the Massoretic text. 1 In this respect the older 
Versions, especially the Version of the Book of Common 
Prayer, is [sic H. M. W.] to be preferred; for while it is 
less accurate than the later Versions, it preserves many read- 
ings of the Greek and Vulgate Versions which later English 
Versions unwisely rejected." 

I proceed to quote some of the relevant dicta of this 
work : — ■ 

" The earliest Version of the Psalter zvas that of the Greek 
Septuagint, translated from the Hebrezu in the second cen- 
tury B.C. at Alexandria, and preserved in many ancient codices, 
the earliest of the fourth century a.d., giving evidence as to 
an original Hebrew text, many centuries prior to any Hebrew 
authorities" 2 (p. xxv). 

" It was made from the best MSS. accessible at the time, < 
and gives evidence as to the original Hebrew text of early sec- 
ond century B.C., three centuries earlier than the text -fixed by 
the school of Jamnia, and twelve centuries earlier than the 
l My italics. 2 Dr. Briggs's italics. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 131 

Mass. text as fixed by Ben As her and preserved in the earliest 
Hebrew codd!' x (ibid.). 

" The text of the LXX where there is a consensus of read- 
ings has a value which has not been estimated by critics as 
highly as it ought to be, so far as the Psalter is concerned. In 
a very large number of cases this common text is to be pre- 
ferred to the Hebrezv consonantal text" 1 (p. xxviii). 

" The text of the LXX carries us still farther back, to a 
Hebrew text of the second century B.C., very soon after the 
Psalter had received its final editing" (p. xxxiii). 

" The divine names were inserted very often in order to 
make it evident that God was the subject or object of the 
verb" x (p. liii). 

" In a very large number of instances the ancient Versions, 
especially the LXX and Vulgate, are more correct than the 
unpointed Hebrezv text. Modern scholars have greatly 

ERRED IN A TOO EXALTED ESTIMATE OF THE CORRECTNESS OF 
THE UNPOINTED HEBREW TEXT IN THIS REGARD. THE MEAS- 
URES MAKE IT EVIDENT THAT EVEN THE UNPOINTED HEBREW 
TEXT, BY ITS NUMEROUS ADDITIONS AND CHANGES OF THE OR- 
IGINAL, IS AS TRULY AN INTERPRETATION OF AN OLDER TEXT 
AS THE LXX AND OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 2 (ibid.). 

Further down on the same page we are told that not infre- 
quently both Elohim and Adonay " appear as a conflation of 
the original text." I think I have quoted enough to show that 
Dr. Briggs, at any rate, is in no case to put forward any vindi- 
cation of either Dr. Skinner or himself, and that in this con- 
troversy he has taken a part which is inconsistent with the 
elements of truthfulness and honor. So far as he is con- 
cerned, the statements about " the principles formed long 
ago " were a tissue of falsehoods. We shall now see that he 
*My italics. a My italics and capitals. 



132 Pentateuchal Studies 

does not stand alone in rejecting the preposterous doctrines 
that he falsely professes to accept in the correspondence. I 
begin by quoting Professor Toy, the author of the volume on 
Proverbs in the International Critical Commentary. In his 
case we are happily dealing with an honorable man. On 
p. xxxii of the work he writes : " Of these the oldest and, for 
the criticism of the text, the most valuable is the Septuagint. 
It represents in general an older text than that of the re- 
ceived Hebrew tradition." As he was not prepared to sacri- 
fice his convictions on the altar of the documentary theory, 
Dr. Toy, in reviewing my " Essays in Pentateuchal Criti- 
cism," wrote as follows : " Several writers have recently 
dwelt on the fact that the Septuagint and other ancient Ver- 
sions differ considerably from the received Hebrew text (the 
Masoretic) in the use of divine names. . . . The Septuagint 
translators, it is commonly supposed, followed their Hebrew 
text faithfully, and this text is equally authoritative with the 
Masoretic (in both cases internal evidence must decide as to 
the value of readings) : it is concluded that the latter is not 
a trustworthy guide for a division of documents based on 
divine names, and this is Mr. Wiener's contention. While 
this point calls for a more thorough examination than has 
yet been given it, the conclusion just stated is not out of keep- 
ing with the tone of modern criticism. As is well known, 
critics generally hold that our Hebrew text has suffered 
greatly from scribes and editors in the process of transmis- 
sion. It is agreed that divine names have been changed in 
Chronicles, Psalms and elsewhere, why not in the Penta- 
teuch ? " 1 Dr. Toy, it will be seen, is not prepared to contra- 
dict the lifelong principles of Dr. Briggs and himself on 
textual Criticism for the sake of the documentary theory. 
Christian Register, April 28, 1910, p. 455. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 133 

And yet he is a man who suffered for his conscientious beliefs 
when it appeared to him that the higher criticism was true. 
My authority is Dr. Briggs, and I quote the account he gives 
in the General Introduction that I have already cited so often. 
" The first to suffer for the Higher Criticism in the United 
States was C. H. Toy, who was Professor of Old Testament 
Interpretation in the Baptist Theological School, at Green- 
ville, S. C., from 1869 to 1879. In the latter year he was 
forced to resign because of his views as to Biblical Criticism " 
(p. 286). As he was the first in the United States to suffer 
for his Higher Critical views, so has he been the first to admit 
that those views might be unfounded. Amicus Plato, magis 
arnica Veritas. 

Similarly with Dr. H. P. Smith, from whose pen comes the 
volume on Samuel in the International Critical Commentary. 
He writes : " In the absence of light from the MSS. we must 
seek the help of the ancient versions. And among these the 
Greek easily takes the first place, owing to its age and to the 
fact that it had a Hebrew original very different from the one 
known to us. If we had the LXX in its earliest form, it would 
be equivalent to a Hebrew codex of the first Christian cen- 
tury, or even of earlier date" (Samuel, p. xxxi). In accord- 
ance with this, Dr. Smith has publicly stated that the work of 
Professors Eerdmans and Schlogl and of the present writer 
necessitate a careful reexamination of the whole field of text- 
ual and historical Criticism. 1 Dr. Smith, too, according ,to 
the same repertory of convenient information, was one of the 
first to suffer for his critical views. Dr. Briggs writes : " The 
discussion of the Higher Criticism in the United States began 

1 Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. xxx. (1910) p. 19, note. 
See also his statement in the text : " Each year we have the neces- 
sity forced upon us to learn something new and to unlearn some 
of the things we had supposed settled." 



134 Pentateuchal Studies 

for the Presbyterian body, in the plea for freedom of criticism 
in my inaugural address as Professor of Hebrew in the Union 
Theological Seminary, N. Y., in 1876. ... I was sustained by 
Henry P. Smith. . . . Prof. Henry Preserved Smith was tried 
on similar grounds. . . . He was also suspended from the min- 
istry in the same year by the Presbytery of Cincinnati, which 
action was sustained next year by General Assembly " (op. 
cit., pp. 286-289). Such men as Doctors Toy and Smith 
must command the respect and admiration of supporters and 
opponents alike. 

It is noticeable that these two men — the two International 
Critical Commentators who suffered for their beliefs, but 
were not prepared to throw away their honor for the sake of 
the documentary theory — had used far less emphatic expres- 
sions as to the role of the LXX in textual criticism than Dr. 
Briggs, or even, as we shall see, Dr. Driver himself. 

One other International Critical Commentator must be 
quoted, the late Dr. William Rainey Harper, whose name is 
affixed to certain papers on Pentateuchal Criticism that ap- 
peared in the Hebraica, and attracted attention some years 
ago. The preface to his "Amos and Hosea " contains a polemic 
against Dr. Driver in the course of which he writes : " It is 
unquestionably the first duty of a commentator to reconstruct 
the text as best he may" (Amos and Hosea, preface, p. viii). 
Further on, in the course of his introduction, he says of the 
LXX : " In the correction of MT, LXX is most helpful. . . . 
When due allowance is made for the errors of LXX there 
still remain many passages in which its text is preferable to 
M.T." (p. clxxiv). 

I come now to Dr. Driver. The attitude as to textual crit- 
icism assumed by the general editors of the International 
Critical Commentary in the letter of the 28th of February, 



Pent ait euchal Criticism 135 

1911, is more like his general attitude than that of Dr. Briggs. 
But Dr. Driver himself does not altogether adopt the extra- 
ordinary contentions of the letter. I have pointed out some 
of the ways in which he differs from Dr. Skinner (and conse- 
quently from the defense of Dr. Skinner) in reviewing his 
"Additions, etc.," in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 
1911, and also in the second answer to Dr. Gordon (supra, 
p. 118). Perhaps the strongest instance of the divergence 
between the Dr. Driver of textual criticism and the Dr. Driver 
of the joint letter is, however, to be found on pages lii f. of 
his " Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel," 
where he quotes and indorses Klostermann's famous dictum 
" Let him who would himself investigate and advance learn- 
ing, by the side of the other Ancient Versions accustom him- 
self above all things to the use of Field's Hexapla, and 
Lagarde's edition of the Recension of Lucian." Why does 
this principle suddenly cease to be valid when Dr. Skinner's 
conduct comes up for consideration? 

It must not be thought that in laying stress on the question 
of textual criticism I am urging a principle that is rejected or 
doubted in the case of other ancient works that have depended 
on a MS. tradition. On this point let the identical Dr. Briggs 
speak in the words he has adopted in the work representing 
the carefully matured convictions of so many years which I 
have already had frequent occasion to quote : " Biblical Textual 
Criticism derives from general Textual Criticism its principles 
and methods of work. These differ in their application to 
the Bible only as there are special circumstances connected 
with the biblical writings that differ from those of other 
writings. As Hort says : ' The leading principles of textual 
criticism are identical for all writings whatever. Differences 
in application arise only from differences in the amount, va- 



136 Pentateuchal Studies 

riety, and quality of evidence: no method is ever inapplicable 
except through defectiveness of evidence'" (General Intro- 
duction, p. 231). 

Now there can be no doubt that the well-known rules of 
textual criticism entirely condemn the practice of accepting 
readings on the authority of any te.xt whatever without inves- 
tigation. In proof of this I need only quote some of the ob- 
servations made by Professor J. P. Postgate in the article on 
" Textual Criticism " in the eleventh edition of the Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica. He writes as follows: — 

" Where the critic has ascertained the earliest form of a 
reading in his text, he will apply to it the tests of intrinsic 
probability. No part of a text can be considered exempt from 
this scrutiny, though for a very large part of it it may be dis- 
pensed with. It should, however, be here observed, that who- 
ever takes a reading without investigation, on the authority 
either of a manuscript or of a great scholar, or of a number 
of scholars, ceases for the time being to be a textual critic " 1 
(vol. xxvi. p. 713b). 

" Illegitimate doubt is the uncertainty of the doubter as to 
whether he has examined the whole of the evidence. Such 
doubt is much more frequently felt than acknowledged, and 
its effect upon critical work is highly injurious. On the one 
hand, it is apt to take refuge in an uncritical acceptance of the 
traditional readings, and, on the other hand, to produce a 
crop of hesitant and mutually destructive conjectures which 
a reader naturally resents as a needless waste of his time " * 
{ibid., p. 714a). 

"Authority, as already hinted, has properly no place in 
textual criticism. For his facts a textual critic may, and often 
must, be beholden to others: but never for his opinions. It 

1 My italics. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 137 

adds nothing- to the evidence for a reading that it has been 
approved by a Lachmann or a Madvig or rejected by a Stoe- 
ber or a Carutti: and an appeal to names on any such ques- 
tion confuses issues and deters inquiry" (ibid., p. 715b). 

The net result of all this is to show, beyond any possibility 
of doubt, that the general editors of the International Crit- 
ical Commentary have belied every principle of scholarship, 
and even of honor, in violation of the very doctrines that one 
of them has accepted and striven to propagate throughout his 
life. To all appearance they have as little compunction about 
deceiving their readers as a fraudulent company promoter has 
about deceiving the public whom he hopes to despoil. 1 I use 
this clear language purposely, because I feel that a state of 
affairs has arisen which must be terminated. We have to 
deal with a number of professors who abuse their positions in 
the last way one would expect, for it must be remembered 
that the public supposes them to be men of high standing 
actuated by the purest motives, adopting and advocating 
particular views because those views arise necessarily from 
the relevant evidence. Now I feel that the time has come 
when their conduct has passed all reasonable limits, and it is 
a public duty to say so. If men who should be, and profess 
to be, servants of truth undertake to abuse their positions by 
deliberately propagating falsehood, a time comes when it is 
necessary to denounce them publicly as falsifiers who would 
never dare to enter a witness-box to sustain their allegations 
on oath and under cross-examination. Dr. Alexander R. 
Gordon, of the Presbyterian College, Montreal, affords an 
excellent illustration of this in the correspondence that ap- 

1 In the case of Dr. Driver the best illustration of the above 
statement is the volume on Exodus in the Cambridge Bible for 
Schools and Colleges. See infra, No. 12. 



138 Pentateuchal Studies 

pears on pages 114-123 of this volume. In reply to ques- 
tions whether he had believed Dr. Skinner's representa- 
tions when he read them, he alleged that he could no more 
say " yes " or " no " to such questions than he could to the 
interrogation " Have you left off beating your mother?" In 
the witness-box he would be on oath, and subject to cross- 
examination. Dr. Gordon would haA^e either to give straight- 
forward answers to straightforward questions or to take the 
consequences, which would be ruinous to his reputation; and 
it would appear clearly that he had been duped by Dr. Skin- 
ner. A court of justice is not to be deceived by the methods 
which are apparently thought good enough for theological 
students. 

Similar considerations apply to Dr. Skinner himself. I once 
wrote to Dr. Driver, in a private letter for the information of 
the general editors and Dr. Skinner, that, if the latter brought 
an action for libel against me, it would be the end of the 
school of Astruc in England, and I now repeat this statement 
for the information of a larger public. I propose to devote 
some little space to explaining exactly why this is so, because 
in some quarters there appears to be misunderstanding as to 
precisely what Dr. Skinner has done. 

The controversy which has done so much to expose the 
conduct of the higher critics began with a very innocent ques- 
tion published in the Expository Times for May, 1909, by the 
Rev. A. P. Cox, referring to my article in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for January, 1909. 1 Dr. Skinner answered in the same 
number, but it was perfectly clear that he had not read my 
article. Thus he wrote : " in Genesis .... the LXX [differs 
from the Jewish version] in 49 [cases] — about one-sixth of 

*Now reprinted, with slight modifications, in the first chapter 
of my Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 139 

the whole." " These facts were not discovered by Mr. H. M. 
Wiener " — that, at any rate, was a great deal truer than he 
suspected. Had he read my article he would have found that 
" these facts " were not facts. He then proceeded : " but are 
the common property of scholars, whether scholars have 
always given due weight to them or not. It does not on the 
face of it look as if very much capital could be made out of 
so limited a divergence." After some further discussion, 
which did not in itself prove that he had not read my article, 
Dr. Skinner proceeded to betray his ignorance again by claim- 
ing: (1) that Greek copyists were likely to observe the dis- 
tinction between the two words less carefully than Jewish 
scribes; and (2) that where MT and LXX differ the cases 
where God is used for the Tetragrammaton " show an im- 
mense preponderance over those where ' Lord ' is used for 
Elohim, the preference for the common word being as marked 
as it is intelligible." This was a particularly unnecessary be- 
trayal of ignorance, because Mr. Cox had emphasized the 
fact that I had adduced evidence showing that the versional 
variants rest on divergent Hebrew texts, and are not due to 
avoidance of the Tetragrammaton. by translators. Hence a 
careful reading of the question Dr. Skinner was purporting 
to answer would have put him on his guard in these matters. 
After some further discussion, in which he compared the crit- 
ical achievements to the discovery of America, Dr. Skinner 
thought fit to lay down what my arguments (which he ob- 
viously had not read) could ever accomplish. Now I do not 
know what standards of honor commend themselves to 
higher critical minds : but, from the point of view of laymen, 
it is certain that Dr. Skinner transgressed in two respects: 
First, although he had not troubled to read my work, he 
passed adverse judgment on me. It is not the custom among 



140 Pentateuchal Studies 

men of honor to condemn what they have not read. 1 For 
them, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh- 
bor " is still binding. Secondly, he was deceiving his public 
by making false representations. Any reader of his note who 
had not independent knowledge must have supposed that he 
had read my article, and that he was putting forward state- 
ments which he had reasonable ground to believe to be true. 
In these circumstances I did my best to recall him to a sense 
of right without exposing him too openly. My reply, which 
was published in the Expository Times for July, 1909, was 
designed to draw his attention to the article he had not read, 
and to the unsoundness of his statements of fact and his ar- 
guments. 2 Thus he had twice had public warning — once in 
Mr. Cox's note and once in mine — of the true state of affairs, 
and this was reinforced by Professor Schlogl's correction of 
him in the September number of the same magazine. It was 
in those circumstances that he took it upon himself to repeat 
his representations in his volume on Genesis. Of course he 
could not support his published statements in the witness-box 
without committing direct perjury, and that is why there can 
be no question of his bringing proceedings for libel. I did all 
I could to keep him straight after his first offense by the note 
in the Expository Times: but if the principal of a theological 
college, after repeated warnings, persists in giving currency 
to statements which he could not support in the witness-box 
without committing perjury, a time comes when the interests 

1 It seems, however, to be the usual practice among higher crit- 
ics. I could give instance after instance that has come to my 
knowledge, and may perhaps do so on another occasion should ne- 
cessity arise. 

2 1 fear that Dr. Gordon has not realized this. It is, to say the 
least, doubtful whether he has done me the justice of carefully 
reading and considering the Bibliotheca Sacra article and compar- 
ing it with Dr. Skinner's discussion in his Genesis. 



Pentateuchal Criticism 141 

of the public necessitate a full and clear exposure. There is 
a further reason why no action can be brought. At present 
the critics are able to use their control of the technical press 
in the interests of their theories: but an action would give 
wide publicity to inconvenient facts, and would clearly expose 
the tactics that they have pursued for years. 

One other point must be made. Two friends of Dr. Skin- 
ner's wrote to me independently to say that they did not 
think that he intended to deceive. I answered one by giving 
him some further facts : whereupon he did not pursue the 
subject. But is the position tenable? No, it is not; for every 
man must be supposed to intend the natural and necessary 
consequences of his own acts. If Dr. Skinner did not intend 
to deceive, it was open to him (both before and after I had 
warned him) to tell the truth about my work. He did not 
do so, but went out of his way to put forward statements that 
were false, and that he must have seen to be false if he ex- 
amined my work and Professor Schlogl's. Now in the letter 
of the 4th of January, 1911, the general editors assert, no 
doubt truly, that Dr. Skinner had told them that he had ex- 
amined this work. If this statement of Dr. Skinner's be true 
— and so far as my work is concerned there are expressions 
in his " Genesis " which lend it some confirmation — I do not 
see how anybody can suppose that Dr. Skinner did not intend 
to deceive. According to his own account, he knew the truth 
but chose to make statements that were untrue. If he did not 
intend to deceive by acting thus, what did he intend to do? 

Unhappily his offense is a continuing offense, for every 
fresh reader of his book is likely to be deceived unless he 
has had warning aliunde, and neither Dr. Skinner nor his 
general editors can be ignorant of this. If, therefore, there 
were no intention to deceive, the book would long since have 



142 Pentateuchal Studies 

been called in. Old Testament Studies have indeed come to 
a pretty pass when theological professors and principals can 
behave as these men have been doing; but obviously matters 
cannot continue thus. The position is in fact impossible and 
must shortly be recognized to be so. If men occupying such 
positions wilfully and persistently give currency to false state- 
ments which they could not support in the witness-box with- 
out committing perjury, they must in the long run prove the 
most efficient means of destroying the theories they support. 



XII 
DR. DRIVER ON EXODUS 1 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1912.] 

Dr. Driver's long-expected volume on Exodus has at last 
appeared. A reviewer cannot welcome it with satisfaction, for 
to treat the volume conscientiously is an exceptionally odious 
as well as an exceptionally difficult task. The present writer, 
at any rate, in the course of a singularly unfortunate ex- 
perience, has never found a reviewer's labors so distasteful 
or performed them with so much reluctance as in the present 
instance. 

On Dr. Driver's own showing, the book has taken a long 
time to write. We are told in the preface that the greater 
part of the notes were in type when the commentary of Mr. 
Mac Neile appeared, i.e. in May, 1908 ; and, though the pre- 
face itself is dated 5 February 1911, a perusal of the volume 
shows that the bulk of it is old, and written without any ref- 
erence to much of the recent work on the subject. For in- 
stance, there is not a single reference to the German books of 
Eerdmans. There are occasional references to some of his 
English articles, and to work of other writers that has ap- 
peared more recently than the first instalments of the " Alttes- 
tamentliche Studien." Not that Dr. Driver minds referring 
to German books — far from it. That is not the reason for 

1 The Book of Exodus in the Revised Version, with Introduction 
and Notes. By the Rev. S. R. Driver, Regius Professor of Hebrew 
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Hon. D.Litt. Cambridge and 
Dublin, Hon. D.D. Glasgow and Aberdeen; Fellow of the British 
Academy; Corresponding Member of the Royal Prussian Academy 
of Sciences. Cambridge: At the University Press. 1911. 

143 



144 Pentateuchal Studies 

his reticence. And there is no direct reference to my work. 
Two passages in the notes may have been influenced by me 
(though I may be wrong in this inference), and with these 
I will deal later on. But there is a sentence in the preface 
which can be interpreted only as a claim that he was entirely 
acquainted with the facts and arguments I had advanced. 
After stating that, in his opinion, his " conclusions .... rest 
in their broader outlines upon secure foundations," he con- 
tinues : " I say this with full knowledge of what has been said 
by various writers on the other side. Assiduous and pains- 
taking as the labours of some of these writers have been, it 
does not appear to me that they have been successful either 
in shaking the great cumulative argument which shows that 
the traditional position is untenable, or in finding a better ex- 
planation of the facts presented by the Old Testament itself 
than, substantially, — I expressly do not say, in every par- 
ticular, — that which is commonly associated with the name 
of Wellhausen." Observe there is a claim to." full knowledge 
of what has been said by various writers on the other side.'* 
It is dated 5 February 1911. Writing to me exactly three 
weeks previously, Dr. Driver had made the very much more 
moderate statement that he was " acquainted with my writings 
and had read considerable parts of them." " Considerable 
parts " is not a synonym for full knowledge or even an ade- 
quate basis for full knowledge: yet, of course, it might be 
possible to argue that Dr. Driver had spent the whole or some 
part of the three weeks in obtaining the full knowledge he 
here claims. Unfortunately the contents of the book show 
that neither he nor his general editor had that full knowledge 
or anything like it. I regret to say that they are of such a 
character as to throw a most unfavorable light alike on this 



Dr. Driver on Exodus 145 

statement, and on his conduct as a general editor of the In- 
ternational Critical Commentary. 

In writing on these subjects, I have repeatedly drawn at- 
tention to the fact that the ordinary statement of the Well- 
hausen school that in early times all slaughter was sacrificial 
cannot be sustained. On pages 175 fT. of " Essays in Penta- 
teuchal Criticism " I was careful to make this point at full 
length, particularly explaining that Dr. Driver contradicted 
himself on the subject in his commentary on Deuteronomy, 
following the ordinary Wellhausen allegations in one place 
and contradicting them in a note on the same page. Now I 
drew attention to this point again in the article on Dr. Skinner 
in the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1910 1 (which Dr. 
Driver claims to have read carefully), and again in the Ex- 
positor for November, 1910, in an article to which I referred 
in the correspondence. 2 If, therefore, Dr. Driver really has 
" full knowledge " of any conservative point, this must be it. 
Will it be believed that in this commentary on Exodus he 
again stultifies himself by a similar self-contradiction on this 
very question? On page 223 the phrase of Exodus xxi. 37 
( E. V. xxii. 1 ) , " and kill it," comes up for consideration. Dr. 
Driver writes : " The word is the one regularly used of slaught- 
ering cattle for food (Gen. xliii. 16; 1 Sam. xxv. 11 al.)." 
These passages and others make it quite clear that non-sacri- 
ficial slaughter for food was common. Yet, at the top of page 
207, in commenting on another Hebrew word, he writes, 
without any reference to the evidence of Exodus xxi. ST a>nd> 
the other passages, " Since in early times animals were sel- 
dom, if ever, killed without an accompanying sacrifice." Other 
instances to which I have drawn attention are not cited. Now 
I have to ask, Is it possible that a man who has enough in- 
1 8uvra\, p. 62. 2 Page 94. 



146 Pentateuchal Studies 

telligence to produce a commentary on Exodus should con- 
tinue repeating the statement and contradicting himself on the 
point if he in fact had the full knowledge he claims ? To me 
it appears that this question can be answered only in one way. 

Another point that is of very great importance is the mat- 
ter of altars. On page 291, " the horns of it " (Ex. xxvii. 2) 
suggest to Dr. Driver such remarks as the following : " these 
were an indispensable part of an altar (cf. xxx. 2, 3), and 
were regarded as its most sacred part .... a criminal seek- 
ing asylum seized hold of them (1 Kings i. 50; ii. 28)." Now 
I have explained (op. cit., p. 181) that an altar of earth or 
unhewn stones could have no horns since the nature of the 
materials would not allow them. A " full knowledge " of my 
writings would, therefore, have shown Dr. Driver that his 
statement that the horns were an indispensable part of an al- 
tar " was incapable of being supported. 

A third example may be taken from his conduct in respect 
of Dr. Kent's book " Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents." 
One of the most eminent living authorities on ancient law 
wrote to me that Dr. Kent's book was " in fact very disgrace- 
ful." If Dr. Driver likes to submit my review of that book 
(a copy of which was sent to him in 1908) to any Oxford law 
don in whom he has confidence, he can obtain independent con- 
firmation of this view. Yet he actually recommends the 
volume on page 2 of the eighth edition of his " Literature of 
the Old Testament," and follows up this recommendation by 
referring his unfortunate readers to it in his " Exodus " (pp. 
lxiii. note, 418 note). 

There is no object in multiplying instances. Dr. Driver's 
" knowledge " is obviously not "full." " Studies in Biblical 
Law," " Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism," and the article on 
" Priests and Levites " in the July, 1910, number of the Bib- 



Dr. Driver on Exodus 147 

liotheca Sacra, 1 together answer most of his points. In some 
cases it might be open to Dr. Driver to reply that, to his mind, 
the answers were not convincing; but that cannot well be the 
case with the instances I have considered. 

Nor again could this be said of the uncertainty of the Mas- 
soretic text as to the Divine appellations, a matter of which 
Dr. Driver says no word in spite of his formal reservation in 
the correspondence with me of the right to treat the matter 
in whatever manner he might think proper. That question 
has now reached a stage in which it can no longer be pretended 
that complete silence is compatible with honorable candor 
towards his public. 

It appears to me, therefore, that his conduct raises ques- 
tions of great and fundamental gravity touching the respon- 
sibilities of a writer to his readers, especially when those 
readers may in many cases be school-boys or other junior 
students who stand in peculiar need of protection. Dr. Driver 
has raised questions of conscience that are of greater moment 
than any questions of scholarship. How far is any writer 
justified in solemnly holding himself out as possessing knowl- 
edge that he does not in fact possess? How far is he justified 
in asking his readers to believe him or accept his conclusions 
on the strength of this profession of knowledge ? How far is 
he justified in recommending or referring his readers to very 
disgraceful books without a word of warning? How far is 
it right that these things should be done under the shelter of 
the name of a great University? Are such actions creditable 
or even excusable features of a " Cambridge Bible for Schools 
and Colleges," or indeed of any Bible commentary? Is this 
what the public expects of professors and others who under- 
take to give instruction on the Bible to more or less defense- 
1 See infra, No. 20. 



148 Penfateuchal Studies 

less students? These are questions to be answered not mere- 
ly by Dr. Driver and his general editor, but also by those who 
are responsible for the reputation of the Cambridge Univer- 
sity Press, by all who are engaged in teaching or learning the 
Bible, and by the general public. 

It remains for me to say a few words on the passages that 
appear to have been influenced by my work. In Exodus vi. 
3, Dr. Driver adopts wnn for vijfiU, and in xviii. 6 run 
for ^N; but in both instances it seems probable that this 
is the result of an independent yielding to the overwhelm- 
ing evidence, and not to anything I have written. There are, 
however, two other passages where I suspect something more. 
The first of these is in the note on Exodus xxi. 6. On the 
words " the door," Dr. Driver writes : " not as has been sup- 
posed, of the sanctuary." The " supposition " to which he 
alludes in these distant terms is enshrined in his own commen- 
tary on Deuteronomy. Why does he now contradict it with- 
out assigning any reason ? 1 Has he really discovered that a 
mound or stone will not develop a door or doorpost even if 
it be called a sanctuary? 

The other passage is Exodus xxxiii. 7, " the tent." On this 
he writes (p. 359) : "the rendering ' a tent' which Hebrew 
idiom would also permit, does not suit the sequel, which im- 
plies that not a casual, but a definite tent, is meant." No name 
is mentioned, but it seems not unlikely that this note is due 
to my insistence on the rendering ' a tent ' as being here the 
correct equivalent of the Hebrew. It is therefore right that 
I should deal with the argument. It is unnecessary on the 

1 On his present approval of the conjecture that elohim in this 
passage should be rendered 'gods,' and understood of the house- 
hold gods and of Kautzsch's view that the reference is to an image 
of God, I need only refer him to my Notes on Hebrew Religion, 
pp. 24 f. 



Dr. Driver on Exodus 149 

point of definiteness to do more than to quote Dr. Driver's 
note on page 160 ("in a book," Ex. xvii. 14). After citing 
Dillmann's words, " the Hebrew always writes ' in the book/ ,J 
Dr. Driver continues in his own language thus: "an object 
being conceived as definite in Hebrew not only because it is 
already known or has been mentioned before, but also because 
it is taken for a particular purpose, and so made definite in the 
speaker's or writer's mind. See numerous examples in Gese- 
nius-Kautzsch, sect. 126 r. s. ; e. g. Ex. xvi. 32 the omerful, xxi. 
20 with the rod, Num. xxi. 9 put it on the pole, Jos. ii. 15 with 
the cord, etc. ; in all such cases we naturally say a!' Precise- 
ly: a casual tent taken for a particular purpose and so made 
definite in the writer's mind would be expressed by the in 
Hebrew, a in English, and that is exactly what the sequel re- 
quires, for Dr. Driver's own next note on the subject enforces 
this truth. He writes: "pitch it] Heb. pitch it for himself: 
it was intended particularly for his own use, in his converse 
with God." Exactly; and, that being so, it cannot (as Dr. 
Driver believes) have been the abode of the Ark. It is in- 
credible that Moses should have been in the habit of taking 
the shelter of the Ark, and pitching it particularly for his own 
use while leaving the Ark in the camp in a denuded and un- 
protected condition. For the rest, Dr. Driver has entirely 
failed to meet the points which, as I have shown elsewhere, x 
make his view impossible. 

There are many other points that are open to criticism ; and, 
in ordinary circumstances, I should have dealt with some of 
these. But, having regard to the peculiar nature of this pub- 
lication, I do not think it right to do anything that might have 
the effect of distracting attention from the larger issues in- 

1 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 90-102; cp. The Origin 
of the Pentateuch, pp. 53 ff. 



150 Pentateuchal Studies 

volved. We have to deal with a course of conduct that affects 
the good name and honor of two Universities, and the inter- 
ests of youthful students who are not yet able to protect them- 
selves. 

from dr. driver 

Ch. Ch., Oxford, 

Dec. 7. 
Dear Sir: — 

I am much obliged to you for sending me a proof of your 
note on Exodus. I do not propose to write any reply to it: 
I will merely, as I am writing to you now, point out an error of 
fact, into which I think you have fallen, with regard to what 
I say respecting Ex. 21. 6. In my Commentary on Dt, p. 184, 
I cannot see that I explain the ' -door ' in Ex. as that of the 
sanctuary: I say that I think the clause containing the word 
is ambiguous ; but I am not aware that I express any prefer- 
ence for the view that the door is that of the sanctuary. Nor 
can I see that in my note on Ex. 21. 6 I " approve " the opinion 
either that elohim mean ' gods ', or that it denotes an image of 
Yahweh ; I mention these views, as held by certain scholars ; 
but I say nothing (such as 'This is better', or 'more proba- 
ble') to suggest that I adopt either of them myself. 
Believe me, 

Yours sincerely, 

S. R. Driver. 

to dr. driver 

9 Old Square, 

Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 
Dear Sir : — 

Thank you for your letter. I note what you say with regard 



Dr. Driver on Exodus 151 

to the explanation of Ex. xxi. 6 in your Deuteronomy : but I 
was very careful in my choice of language. The word I se- 
lected — ' enshrined ' — was intended to cover, and does, I 
think, in fact cover exactly that interpretation of the Deuteron- 
omy note which you now tell me is the right one. It is the 
case that when you wrote your Deuteronomy you regarded 
as possible a view of Ex. xxi. which you now regard as im- 
possible for some reason or reasons which you do not state: 
and my expressions appear to me to meet precisely this con- 
dition of affairs. 

As to the other question there is, I think, a bona fide differ- 
ence of opinion between us as to the effect of your note. If 
I am not mistaken this arises from a difference of attitude. 
When I read it I reason thus : ' What would any junior stu- 
dent understand by this? One view is mentioned only to be 
rejected: certain other views are cited without any suggestion 
that there is any objection to them or any warning as to 
adopting them: and other interpretations are not even men- 
tioned. A commentator who puts forward certain views with- 
out objection, question, warning, expression of doubt, or al- 
ternative, must be held to recommend those views. Surely he 
cannot be supposed to put them forward because he does not 
adopt them. Surely, too, no schoolboy would suspect that the 
commentator regarded them as incorrect. If the commentator 
does not believe the interpretations he himself adduces without 
doubt or question, what on earth does he believe or mean his 
readers to believe?' I cannot see that there is any possible 
answer to this from the standpoint of the public for whom the 

book zvas written. ~ .. 

Believe me, 

Yours sincerely, 

8 December 1911. Harold M. Wiener. 



XIII 

THE NEGEB IN EXODUS 

[From the BiWiotlieca Sacra, April, 1912.] 

The use of the word m, Negeb, for " south " in chapters 
xxvi -xl. of Exodus has long been a crux, since the word 
properly means the dry land in the south of Judah, and this 
was not to the south of the Israelites in the wilderness. As 
Robertson Smith emphatically put it : " Moses could no more 
call the south side the Negeb side of the tabernacle than a 
Glasgow man could say that the sun set over Edinburgh." x 
J. Weiss in his recent edition of Exodus 2 says, with reason, 
that in xxvi. 18 the word is a gloss, but he does not go into 
the evidence for the matter. I find that the LXX presents 
some striking phenomena in some of the relevant passages, 
and it seems to me desirable to draw attention to these. The 
final solution of the problem cannot be reached until more 
study has been devoted to the textual history of the conclud- 
ing chapters of Exodus, but I think that this is likely to be 
helped by calling notice to the singularities that have special 
reference to our difficulty. 

There are five passages in which the Massoretic text pre- 
sents us with the word ; viz. xxvi. 18 with the recapitulatory 
passage xxxvi. 23, xxvii. 9 with its recapitulatory passage 
xxxviii. 9, and finally xl. 24 (LXX 22). The last of these 
passages does not caH for special mention, as the LXX does 
not differ from the Massoretic text, and attention will there- 
fore be concentrated on the other four. 

x The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2d ed.), p. 326. For 
the contrary view, see the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. lv. (1898) p. 524. 

2 Das Buch Exodus iibersetzt und erklart. Graz und Wien. 1911. 

152 



The Negeb in Exodus 153 

It must first be noticed that in all four cases the Massoretic 
text presents us not with one word to denote direction, but 
with two, " the south side, southward," etc. In all these 
cases the first word only is Negeb, the second being the unex- 
ceptionable iwn- The tautology is, of course, strongly in 
favor of the gloss theory. And it is supported by the fact 
that in three instances the LXX clearly had only one word, 
while the fourth passage (xxxvi. 23) is missing altogether 
from the pre-Hexaplar Greek. But this is not all. 

In Exodus xxvi. 18, 20, 22, the Massoretic text has the 
order south, north, west. Not so the LXX. It has north, 
south, west (though there is some weak authority obviously 
influenced by the present Hebrew for the Massoretic order). 
Further, it uses, for " south," to 77-00? vorov, i.e. its rendering 
for roDTi in verse 35 of the same chapter, where even the He- 
brew does not read Negeb. Hence it seems that the view of 
Weiss is here strongly supported by the Greek evidence. 

In the other two passages the facts are more complicated. 
While this makes them harder to interpret it certainly adds to 
the interest. In chapter xxvii. a convenient conspectus of the 
important facts may be given as follows : — 

Refebence. Massoretic Text. Septuagint. 

Ex. xxvii. 9. On the side of the (1) On the south- 

Negeb, southwards. ward side (rb irpbs \(pa 
being used), B and 
four cursives. 

(2) On the north- 
ward side, M (mar- 
gin) and about five 
cursives. 

(3) On the south- 
ward side(Td irpbs vStov), 

F, M(text), and the 
great majority of 
Septuagintal author- 
ities. 



154 



Pentateuchal Studies 



Reference. 
Ex. xxvii. 11. 



Massoeetic Text. 



On the 
side. 



northward 



Septuagint. 

(1) On the east- 
ward side (dxr)M<J}77jv 
being used), B, M. 
(margin), and three 
cursives. 

(2) On the north- 
ward side, A, F, M 
(text), and almost 
all the other author- 
ities. 



Ex. xxvii. 12. On the westward On the westward 

side. side. 

Ex. xxvii. 13. On the eastward (1) On the south- 

side, orient-wards. ward side [votov] B 
and a number of cur- 
sives. 

(2) On the east- 
ward side [avaro/ds], 

A, F, M(text), and 
almost all authori- 
ties. 

To appreciate these facts fully it will be necessary to have 
regard to the evidence in the recapitulatory passage; but cer- 
tain phenomena may be noted at once. Only in the case of 
verse 12 is there complete agreement. In the other verses the 
LXX is divided against itself. F and the text of M, together 
with the great majority of the authorities, clearly represent 
a Hebrew that differed from the Massoretic text only in 
having one expression, instead of two, for south in verse 9, 
and for east in verse 13. While, therefore, they testify to the 
fact that the Massoretic text is glossed, they do not other- 
wise assist us to recover the original order of the LXX. If 
we turn from them to B, the best MS., we find that of the 
four quarters, two (verses 9 and 13) are south, and the north 
is entirely missing. Further, two words are used for south, 
Xlfia, in verse 9, and votov in verse 13. Obviously there must 
originally have been a " north," and one or other of these two 
words has replaced the earlier text. Which of the two is it? 






The Negeb in Exodus 155 

The answer is clear for three reasons: (1) in verse 9, B's 
" south " may be an accommodation to the later Hebrew, but 
it cannot be so in verse 13. Hence it is more likely to be cor- 
rupt in the earlier verse; (2) " north " has been preserved by 
some good authorities as the original reading in verse 9 ; and 
(3) the presumption is in favor of the original translators 
having used the same word votos as in the other passages of 
these chapters rather than Xn|r. Hence we may infer that the 
original LXX had north, east, west, south. It should further 
be noticed that the rarer airrfKtdiTri^ for " east " in verse 11 is 
far more likely to be the original text of the LXX than the 
common avaroXas. 

Much of this receives striking confirmation from the phe- 
nomena presented by xxxviii. 9-13 (in the LXX xxxvii. 7- 
11). The material words in the Massoretic text are the same 
as in the earlier passage, but the best LXX text has five 
quarters. In xxxvii. 7 = M. T. xxxviii. 9 it reads " south- 
wards," Xtpa being used, but M(text) and many cursives 
have vorov. In verse 9 it has two* clauses — the earlier " north- 
wards," the second " southwards," vorov being used. The 
second clause is, however, omitted by M and many other 
MSS. In verse 11 it has avaroXd? with very weak evidence 
for vorov. It should be added that an old Latin copy reads 
" north " in verse 7, " east " in verse 10, and " west " in 
verse 11. 

I think that the five quarters in this passage afford corrob- 
orative evidence that the original Septuagintal text of chapter 
xxvii. knew nothing of the Negeb. The order was different, 
and, alike for east and south, it found only one word in its 
Hebrew. In the latter respect it indubitably had a purer He- 
brew text than our Massoretic text. Whether its order of 
the four quarters is the more original is a subject on which 



156 Pentateuchal Studies 

I am not prepared to offer an opinion. And with respect to 
its text in xxxvii. it seems to me that judgment must be sus- 
pended until the whole problem of the text of the concluding 
chapters of Exodus has been thoroughly investigated. 



XIV 
THE "KING" OF DEUTERONOMY XVII. 14-20 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1911.] 

Happening to glance at the Hexapla, I was struck by the 
fact that in Deuteronomy xvii. 14 archon, " ruler," instead of 
the natural basileus, " king," corresponded to the Hebrew 
melek, "king," in the Septuagintal text. Nobody who knows 
Greek could regard this as a translation. Nor did the Old- 
Latin translators, for they render by princeps. On following 
up the clue, I found reason to suppose that the form of this 
law known to the LXX differed slightly, but very materially, 
from that of the Massoretic text. Various considerations 
unite to suggest this conclusion. It is true that there are 
other passages in which archon and its cognates appear to 
represent melek and its cognates, but in each case the Septua- 
gintal text must have been different from our Hebrew. Then, 
too, some of the variants in the Pentateuch are not at all fa- 
vorable to the view that this law was originally a law of the 
kingdom, but distinctly suggest that the text has had a history. 
Again, the other variants in this passage itself show that 
there was once a text relating perhaps to rulers, not a single 
king, in which the throne was unknown and no suggestion of 
the hereditary character of the office existed. 

As the inquiry is necessarily very technical, I propose, for 
the sake of those readers who may be interested in the Pen- 
tateuchal problem and yet do not care to grapple with the 
minutiae of various Greek and Hebrew readings, to set out a 

157 



15! 



Pentateuchal Studies 



translation of what I believe the original Septuagintal text to 
have been, in parallel columns with the ordinary R. V. render- 
ing. For the sake of convenience I italicize the differences. 
My reasons are given in detail in the following discussion, 
but everybody can see for himself how different the histori- 
cal setting of the two versions would be. 



E.V. 

14 When thou art come unto 
the land which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee and shalt possess it, 
and shalt dwell therein; and 
shalt say, I will set a kmg over 
me, like as all the nations that 
are round about me; 

15 thou shalt in any wise set 
him king over thee, whom the 
Lord thy God shall choose: one 
from among thy brethren shalt 
thou set king over thee: thou 
mayest not put a foreigner over 
thee, which is not thy brother. 

16 Only he shall not multi- 
ply horses to himself, nor cause 
the people to return to Egypt, 
to the end that he should multi- 
ply horses: forasmuch as the 
Lord hath said Unto you, Ye 
shall henceforth return no more 
that way. 

17 Neither shall he multiply 
wives to himself, that his heart 
turn not away : neither shall he 
greatly multiply to himself sil- 
ver and gold: 

18 And it shall be, when he 
sitteth upon the throne of his 
kingdom, that he shall write 
him a copy of this law in a 
book, out of that which is before 
the priests the Levites : 



PEOBABLE TEXT OF THE LXX. 

14 When thou art come un- 
to the land which the Lord thy 
God giveth thee and shalt pos- 
sess it, and shalt dwell therein; 
and shalt say, I will set a ruler 
[variant rulers] over me, like 
as all the nations that are 
round about me, 

15 thou shalt in any wise set 
over thee a ruler whom the 
Lord thy God shall choose from 
among thy brethren; thou may- 
est not put a foreigner over 
thee which is not thy brother. 

16 Only he shall not multi- 
ply horses to himself, nor cause 
the people to return to Egypt: 
forasmuch as the Lord hath 
said, Ye shall henceforth return 
no more that way. 



17 [Identical with the He- 
brew.] 



18 And when he sitteth upon 
his rule [?], that he shall write 
him a copy of this law in a 
book out of that which is be- 
fore the priests the Levites : 






The " King " of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 159 

19 And it shall be with him, 19 And it shall be with him 
and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he 
the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord thy 
may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all these commands 
God, to keep all the words of and these statutes to do, 

this law and these statutes, to 
do them, 

20 that his heart be not lifted 20 that his heart be not lift- 
up above his brethren, and that ed up above his brethren, and 
he turn not aside from the com- that he turn not aside from the 
mandment, to the right hand, or commandments to the right 
to the left: to the end that he hand, or to the left: to the end 
may prolong his days in his that he may prolong his days 
kingdom, he and his children in on his land, he and the children 
the midst of Israel. of Israel. 

Before plunging into the technical details, certain general 
observations fall to be made. There are minor differences in 
verses 15 and 16 where the Septuagintal text is obviously 
superior to the Massoretic, giving the meaning in clearer 
phraseology. There are also some insignificant divergences 
in verse 19 which do not change the meaning. But the out- 
standing difference between the two texts is a difference of 
institutions contemplated. The identity in all other matters 
shows that we are not dealing with mere scribal errors. (In 
verse 18 it is possible that in the LXX the word " rule " has 
replaced an original " land," for such a change is attested in 
verse 20 by all the Septuagintal MSS., with two exceptions, 
which enable us to get back to the earlier text.) On the 
whole there can be no doubt that we have to consider diver- 
gences in the MS. tradition as distinguished from mere 
chance errors of Greek scribes. The latter would not lead to 
the numerous differences now in one touch and now in an- 
other, making jointly an entirely different institution from 
that known to the Massoretic text. The fact that all these 
little pieces dove-tail into a single pattern proves that that 
pattern was original and not due to chance. 



160 Pentatenchal Studies 

I turn to the details. 

In treating of archon and its cognates as renderings for melek 
and its cognates we may begin with the extra-Pentateuchal 
cases. The first of these is Isaiah viii. 21. The Massoretic 
text has rightly wfoai tt!>»2 &pi. This was rendered by 
Aquila and Theodotion teal tcarapa carat iv ra> /3a<rt\ei avrov 
teal iv tok Oeols avrov. 1 The LXX, however, has /ca/cax; 
ipelre rov ap^ovra Kal ra rvdrpia. The reason is not far to 
seek. Either the translators or their Hebrew original deemed 
the true text too improper for reproduction and paraphrased 
it, just as in the present text of 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, Naboth 
is accused of blessing God and the king, and in 1 Samuel 
iii. 13 the scribes made Eli's sons curse themselves instead 
of God. 2 

The next instance is Isaiah x. 8. For the Massoretic ">£&*'' '3 
D^D nrr nP K&n, " For he saith, are not my princes all of 
them kings," the LXX presents us with the wholly different 
Kal iav eLTrcoaiv avrq> 2v /iovos el ap%a>v, " And if they say 
to him, Thou alone art rule.r." Whatever may be thought of 
this, it is quite clear that archon, " ruler," does not stand for 
" king*." 

In verse 10 of the same chapter we have rahvxb *T nwn iBtea 
W>KH, "As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols," 
exactly rendered by Theodotion, /caddirep evpev t) yelp fiov ets 
fiaaLXetas rov dBwXov. There are here two readings — ov 
rporrov ravras ekaftov Kal irdaa^ t£? apxfc [ S o B. x&pas, 
K> A, and the original text of Q : and this is recognized as the 
reading of alia exemplaria in Field] XijfiyfrofiaL, "As I took 

1 SymmachUS renders Kal Karapdaerai (2a<ri\£a eavTof) Kal Tzdrpapxo- et5w\a. 

2 Some suppose that the LXX originally read ira-axpy or iraraxpa, 
which is thought to be a transliteration of a Syriac word meaning 
" idols." This may be so, but does not affect the question of the 
king. 



of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 161 

these, I will take also all the dominions [variant, " coun- 
tries "]." Here again it is clear that the LXX had a reading 
which, even if archas is correct, deviated widely from our 
present Hebrew; and it cannot fairly be claimed that it read 

The last passage in Isaiah is x. 12. The Hebrew has 
Dm i?D 22b bni na hv IpSK, " I will punish the fruit of the 
greatness of the heart of the king of Assyria." On this, Duhm 
ad loc. writes the following: " Das Ungethiim: die Frucht 
der Grosse des Herzens des Konigs Assyriens, passt trefflich 
in die Grammatiken als Beispiel davon was alles moglich ist, 
aber nicht in eine beschwingte Prophetenrede." 

This is as unanswerable as it is vigorous. Such a collection 
of genitives is impossible for the prophet, and is indeed a mon- 
strosity. But B reads, eVafet iirl rbv vovv rbv /JL6<yav eirl 
(this is omitted by K, A, Q, Y)tov ap^ovra Tcov'Acrcvpieov, 
" He will visit the greatness of heart, the ruler of the Assyr- 
ians." 

It will be noticed that "HS, " fruit," is missing here, while 
ton archonta occupies the place of the Hebrew melek. It is sub- 
mitted that the LXX is here translating "il^N ma hv (compare 
its rendering of Deut. xxxii. 42). xna, a rare poetical word 
of uncertain meaning, was glossed, and ultimately relegated 
to the margin by ite, and then taken into the text in the cor- 
rupt form ns. The existence of this word JHS, meaning 
" ruler " or " noble," is guaranteed by the identical Arabic 
root as well as by the Septuagintal rendering of Deuteronomy 
xxxii. 42 and one of the Septuagintal renderings of Judges 
v. 2. 

There remain only some passages in Ezekiel. In xxviii. 12, 
the Massoretic "TO? i?n, " king of Tyre," has top apxovra Tvpov 
as its equivalent. In view of verse 2, where '* TJ^ is rendered 



162 Pentateuchal Studies 

by to) apxovn T., it seems probable that the LXX found TM 
in this passage also. It is interesting to note that Field has 
the entry ol V. eirl rov fia<Ti\ea ("The three [i.e. Aquila, 
Symmachus, Theodotion] the king"). They, at any rate, 
did not regard archon as a possible rendering of melek. 

In xxxvii. 22, M. T. read ixh t&J? <T.T iriK ^Dl, "And one 
king shall be to them all for a king." The LXX has teal 
ap^aiv eh ecrrai avrcov [alia exempt, add irdvrcov Field] — et? 
/3a<rc\ea, " for a king," being added under an asterisk — 
" and there shall be one ruler of them." 

In verse 24, M. T., nn^V 1?n nn H3jn, « and my servant Da- 
vid shall be king over them," is represented by /cat 6 8ov\6$ 
pov AavetS apx&v iv picra* avrcov, i.e. " ruler in their midst." 
On the former verse, Kraetzschmar notes that only in these 
passages is the future ruler designated "king" by Ezekiel. 
It will be remarked that, apart from the rendering of the 
word melek, and the exception to Ezekiel's invariable usage 
furnished by the Massoretic text, there are other indicia of 
corruption. In verse 24, iv /jteaa) avrwv must represent not 
Dirity, " over them," but Mina, " in their midst," and the 
phrase is obviously D3im ^bo, as in xii. 12. Then too the 
addition "p»7 in the earlier verse is clearly a gloss on a text 
which had some other expression for "P&1 in the earlier 
phrase. For these reasons it is submitted that the LXX 
found WKO, "prince" (frequently rendered by archon), and 
not melek in these passages. 

It remains .only to consider Ezekiel xxix. 14 f., QK> vni 14 
niaioDn p rbzv 15 ■"!:£»», " and they shall be there a king- 
dom base beyond the kingdoms." The LXX has 14 /cat carat 
apXV 15 Tairuvi) irapa Trdaas ras ap^ds, " and it shall be a 
dominion base beyond all dominions." 

Field's Hexapla notes on verse 14 that the LXX had /cal 



The " King " of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 163 

earat i/cel apxv, of which i/cel had been added by Origen 
under an asterisk, while the three other Greek translators 
had (jcal earac) i/cel ftaaiXeia again with i/cel under an asterisk. 
On verse 15 he has LXX irapa iracras ras ap^ds Theodotion 
irapa ra? fiaaikelas. Here again it would seem that Ezekiel 
had a text giving Egypt a lower rank than that of kingdom, 
and that a gloss made in the interests of historical explana- 
tion has supplanted the original. 

These are all the extra-Pentateuchal passages that can be 
adduced to prove that V® and its cognates could ever have 
been rendered by archon and its cognates. It is submitted 
that in every case the LXX had a different text, — generally 
better, but sometimes worse, — and that many of the changes 
in the text have brought prophetic utterances into more prosa- 
ically phrased accord with the actual course of history. 

Turning to the Pentateuch we find that in four passages 
outside the law under consideration the equivalent of- V® in 
the Greek text is archon, but in three of these the plural is 
used, while in the fourth A, supported by as many as four 
cursives, omits the word altogether. The passages are Gen- 
esis xlix. 20 ; Numbers xxiii. 21 ; Deuteronomy xxviii. 36 ; 
xxxiii. 5. In Genesis xlix. 20, "po "O^TO, " luxuries of a king," 
is represented by rpvcj>r)v ap%ov<iiv, " luxury for rulers." 
Clearly the Septuagintal text was different and knew nothing 
of melek. Owing to the number of different words that can be 
rendered by archon, no certain inference is possible as to its 
original. In Numbers xxiii. 21 we find ra evho%a apxovrcov 
iv glvtw. Again the underlying text is difficult to divine, but 
again it is obvious that we have something quite different 
from the Massoretic 13 "£» njrnrvi. Field records the fact 
that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all had other ren- 
derings which corresponded to our present Hebrew. In Deu- 



164 Pentateuchal Studies 

teronomy xxviii. 36, the LXX has ical tov? apxovrds aov ci)? 
iav ( 'so B and other authorities f av A, F, and other authorities) 
/caTao-TTJo-^?, " and thy rulers whom thou shalt set," which 
certainly cannot be the equivalent of 'til IBW *pi>» HN\ " thy 
king whom,'' etc. Once more, the other three translators 
render koX tov fiaaiXea <rov, " and thy king." The sugges- 
tion lies near at hand that some plural word has undergone 
corruption (as in some of the other cases we have no- 
ticed) in the interests of historical accuracy. It is not cred- 
ible that any Jewish scribe finding "P^D should have glossed 
it by the Septuagintal text: but the converse hypothesis is 
intrinsically probable, and is supported by what we have seen 
in other cases. It is important to note that in all the Penta- 
teuchal instances we have examined, the " king " of the He- 
brew text appears to have been an alternative to plural words. 
The remaining case need not keep us long, for it is full of 
difficulty. In xxxiii. 5, for "po [TiB^a W, " and he was in 
Jeshurun king," the ordinary Septuagintal text is fcal earai 
(which does not render VH) kv t<5 yya7rr)fieva) ap%a>v, " and 
he shall be ruler in the loved." This is supported by the 
entry in Field, but A, k, o, r, and y omit archon, " ruler." 
Another MS. (b) has in the margin ev r<p evOel £a<7t\eu?, 
supplying the usual protest against the possibility of treating 
archon as a rendering of melek. What may be at the bottom 
of A's divergence is not clear. There are other variants 
recorded in Holmes, but unfortunately the larger Cambridge 
Septuagint has been unable to throw light on the passage. 
In any case it is submitted that as ^an, two words later, is 
rendered by archonton, it is inconceivable that archon (if it be 
really the original text of the LXX) can here represent a 
Hebrew melek. 



The "King" of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 165 

That exhausts the passages outside our own where a Mas- 
soretic melek is represented by a Septuagintal archon. It is 
submitted that in no single instance did the LXX have the 
same reading, and that the Hexaplar variants all tend to 
prove that nobody ever believed that melek could be translated 
by archon. 

It should, however, be mentioned that there is one argument 
which could possibly be pressed into service in support of the 
theory that archon=z" king." It is used for the Hebrew 
Moloch in Leviticus xviii. 21 — where the three other 
translators substitute Moloch — and xx. 1-5. Yet here again 
the LXX uses the plural in the last-mentioned verse, which 
makes the rendering very doubtful; and, moreover, the Greek 
representation of the name of a heathen god would be influ- 
enced by theological considerations, as indeed is the pointing 
of the Hebrew text (giving Moloch for Melech). Just as we 
saw reason to suppose that in Isaiah the translators shirked 
speaking of cursing in connection with the words " god 
and the king," so they may probably have avoided calling a 
heathen deity by a Divine title — if indeed the use of the 
plural does not point to a different Hebrew word altogether. 
For this reason it does not appear to me that the fact should 
affect our view of the Deuteronomic text. That cannot have 
been influenced by such a notion, and moreover the other vari- 
ants in the passage point in the same direction. That ex- 
hausts the other passages we have to consider. Elsewhere 
" king," alike in the Pentateuch and the other parts of the 
Bible, is rendered by the natural basileus. 

The details as to Deuteronomy xvii. itself are as follows : — 

Ver. 14 : "I will set over me a ruler [A, N, and y, 
" rulers "] for " I will set over me a king." 



166 Pentateuchal Studies 

Ver. 15 : "|fo l^y D'bTl, c « thou shalt set over thee a king," 
in its second occurrence is omitted by d, m, the Ethiopic, and 
the Old Latin. Examination of the text shows that it is due 
to dittography, and is not original. 

Ver. 16 : b, d, m, n, and w, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic 
rightly omit did TWDTi fettA, " to the end that he should multi- 
ply horses." 

Ver. 18 : " The throne " is not an original part of the Sep- 

tuagintal text. 1 

Ver. 19 : e and j omit " and read in it all." These words 
merely explain the context, and it is therefore immaterial 
whether they are retained or not. They are probably not or- 
iginal. 

Ver. 20 : For " on his kingdom " there are three variants. 
The ordinary reading is, iirl tt)? apxfjs, " on his rule." Aquila 
is recorded to have read " kingdom " with our present He- 
brew. But q reads eir\ tt)? 77)9, " on the [his] land," and 
18 of Holmes has the obviously conflate eirl apxns rf}? 77}?, 
" on the rule of the land." 

For " his children in the midst of Israel " one Septuagintal 
MS. (16) reads "the children of Israel." This is supported 
by other variants, the ordinary reading being " he and his 
children in the midst of the children of Israel." That is ob- 
viously conflate, resulting from the combination of the pres- 
ent Hebrew with the text of 16. There is, however, another 
reading. Some MSS. have " he and his children the children 
of Israel." This is clearly an intermediate text, pointing back 
to the reading of 16 as the original. 

The resulting text has already been given above. It re- 
mains to review the historical considerations. 

1 It is interesting to note that in verse 20 the Samaritan inserts 
u throne of " before " kingdom," showing how easily such a gloss 
could creep in. 



The " King " of Deuteronomy xvii. 14-20 167 

Speaking of the narrative of 1 Samuel vii. 2-17; viii. ; x. 
17-27a; xii., Dr. Driver writes as follows: — 

" This narrative, now, shows no indications of the law of Dt. 
having been known in fact, either to Samuel, or to the people who 
demanded of him a king: had such been the case, it is incredible 
either that 'Samuel should have resisted the application of the peo- 
ple as he is represented as doing, or — if per impossible he did 
this — that the people should not have appealed to the law, as a 
sufficient justification of their request." (Deuteronomy, p. 213.) 

In the hands of Dr. Driver this of course becomes an argu- 
ment for the late dating of Deuteronomy ; yet if we look at our 
law again we shall see that it is fatal to such a theory. Dr. 
Green's arguments on this point are unanswerable : — 

"And how can a code belong to the time of Josiah, which, while 
it contemplates the possible selection of a king in the future 
(Deut. xvii 14 ff), nowhere implies an actual regal government 
.... which lays special stress on the requirements that the king 
must be a native and not a foreigner (xvii 15), when the undis- 
puted line of succession had for ages been fixed in the family of 
David, and that he must not ' cause the people to return to Egypt ' 
(ver. 16), as they seemed ready to do on every grievance in the 
days of Moses (Nu. xiv 4), but which no one ever dreamed of do- 
ing after they were fairly established in Canaan?" (Moses and 
the Prophets, pp. 63-64.) 

These arguments are really unanswerable. 

It is urged that the horses, the wives, the silver and gold, 
are reminiscences of Solomon; but in truth there is nothing 
distinctive about such traits. They were obvious dangers 
such as must have been familiar to Moses from contemporary 
history. The dangers of a foreigner's rule can also be ex- 
plained from Egyptian history, which is rich in such episodes, 
but not from the annals of the Hebrew monarchy. On the 
other hand, the Septuagintal text enables us, while giving 
due weight to these considerations, to suppose that the law 
of a kingdom was unknown to Samuel, who would only have 



168 Pentateuchal Studies 

been acquainted with the earlier text referring to a non- 
hereditary ruler such as he himself was. It must be remem- 
bered that (apart from the appointment of Joshua and this 
law) the Pentateuch makes no provision at all for a perma- 
nent central executive. Nevertheless the subject must have 
been present to the lawgiver's mind, though tribal jealousies 
and other reasons may have made it impracticable to take 
any definite step towards erecting such an authority. For 
the conquest it was clearly necessary to vest supreme exec- 
utive power in the best general. 

It remains to notice that Ezekiel in his picture of the future 
uniformly avoids the term " king." May we not suppose the 
reason to have been that he, too, knew a text of Deuteronomy 
in which, as in the LXX, the law did not employ this term ? 



XV 



DEUTERONOMY XXXIII . 4—" MOSES COMMANDED 
US A LAW" 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1910.] 

This passage has been used as an argument against the 
Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. How could Moses have 
spoken of "us" if he had written it [see, for example, E. 
Konig, Einleitung in das ^.lte Testament, p. 172] ? The an- 
swer is, that the Vatican MS. (B), and also b, w, d, e, f, i, 1, p, 
q, the Sahidic, and the Ethiopic, read " you," not " us." The 
corruption would be a very easy one, and the phrase " Moses 
commanded us a law " would readily commend itself to later 
scribes. It is to be noticed that there are innumerable other 
instances of differences between the LXX and the Massoretic 
text as to the pronominal terminations, and these seem likely 
to wreck many modern theories. 



169 



XVI 



THE LAWS OF DEUTERONOMY AND THE ARGU- 
MENTS FROM SILENCE 

[From the Princeton Theological Review, April, 1907.] 

A considerable portion of the case made by the higher 
critics against the authenticity of the laws of Deuteronomy 
rests on arguments from silence. It is the object of the pres- 
ent article to refute these ; but, in order to do so quite fairly, 
it will be well to state them first in the words of some repre- 
sentative critical writer. To this end, two passages of Dr. 
Driver's argument in his edition of Deuteronomy are sub- 
joined: — ■ 

" The ' Tent of Meeting,' with its appurtenances, which 
figures so largely in P (Ex. xxv-xxxi, xxxv-xl, — together 
with many allusions elsewhere) ; the distinction between the 
priests, the sons of Aaron, and the common ' Levites,' so 
often and emphatically insisted on in the same source ; the Le- 
vitical cities, and the year of Jubile ; the elaborately developed 
sacrificial system of P; the meal-offering (nmo), the guilt- 
offering (new), and especially the sin-offering (n&ttDn) — all 
these are never mentioned in Dt. : the atoning efficacy of sac- 
rifice, on which such stress is laid in the sacrificial laws of P, 
is alluded to once in Dt. (xxi 8b), and that in a law for which 
there is in P no parallel; the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 
xvi), in which the Levitical system of sacrifice and purifica- 
tion (Lev. i-xv) culminates, is in Dt. passed by in silence." 1 

In a footnote on the above passage, Dr. Driver adds the 
following remarks : — 

1 Driver, Deuteronomy, p. xiii. 
170 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 171 

" The Tent of Meeting is mentioned in Dt. xxxi 14 f., but 
in a passage belonging not to D, but to JE. Nor, even there, 
does it appear as the centre of a great sacrificial organization. 
The non-mention of the sin-offering beside the burnt- and 
peace-offering in xii 6, 11 is very remarkable. ... It is also 
singular that korban, P's very common, and most general 
term for offering (including sacrifices), never occurs in Dt." 

The second passage runs as follows : — 

" It is also undoubtedly true that the aim of Dt. is very 
different from that of P: the one is intended (chiefly) for the 
guidance of the priests, the other is addressed to the people; 
the one represents the priestly point of view, the other that 
of the prophets ; the one lays down a complete code of ritual 
observances, which certainly does not fall within the scope 
of the other. Still, if P were written by Moses, — or even 
compiled by another hand under his direction, — it is incon- 
ceivable that in recapitulating at the close of his life the laws 
which he desired the Israelites to observe, he should have 
thus held himself aloof from a body of law, in the compila- 
tion of which he had {ex hyp.) been so intimately concerned, 
ignoring institutions which he had represented as of central 
significance in his system, and contradicting regulations 
which he had declared to be invested with the highest sanc- 
tions. Not only does Dt. not contain (in any sense of the 
word) a resume or ' recapitulation ' of the laws of P, but the 
author does not even do what, supposing him to have been 
interested in a great ceremonial system, would have been 
consonant with the general plan of his work, and at the same 
time of the utmost value to future generations of Israelites : 
he does not, even in general terms, refer to the system which 
(ex hyp.) he had prescribed, for the purpose of summarizing 
its leading principles, or of defining the place which cere- 



172 Pentateuchal Studies 

monial institutions should hold in a spiritual religion. On 
the contrary, his attitude towards it shows that its most 
characteristic ideas are alien to his mind, and have no place 
in his scheme of religion." x 

It is only fair to remember that these passages were writ- 
ten at a time when Dr. Driver believed that contradictions 
could be established between the laws of Deuteronomy and 
other portions of the Pentateuch. 2 Not unnaturally, there- 
fore, they are colored by this belief. Moreover, in estimating 
them, we must also consider that Dr. Driver's mind was in- 
fluenced by the old (and in my view quite untenable) idea 
that if Deuteronomy be genuine it is a recapitulation of the 
Law. But, even so, we must say that, in view of other pas- 
sages in his book (pp. xxvi, xxvii, xxx), Dr. Driver is not 
altogether self-consistent. Why complain, for instance, that 
" a manual addressed to the people and intended for popular 
use " which " does not embrace a complete corpus of either 
the civil or ceremonial statutes that were in force when it 
was written " (p. xxvi) makes no mention of the land laws, 3 
or of such technical details as the meal-offering, the guilt- 
offering, the sin-offering, and the theory of sacrifice? 

As, however, Dr. Driver's arguments rest on fundamental 
misconceptions of the character and objects of the Mosaic 
legislation, the best answer is to deal with the larger aspects 
of the question, explaining incidentally the particular points 
that give trouble. The issues between us are far wider than 
any question of the mention or non-mention of a particular 

1 Driver, op. cit., pp. xl-xli. 

2 See, as to this, Studies in Biblical Law, passim; Essays in 
Pentateuchal Criticism, passim; and the Churchman (London), 
July, 1906, pp. 422^130, and September, 1906, pp. 548-555. 

3 There must have been some land laws in existence when the 
book was written, on any hypothesis of its origin. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 



173 



law or sacrifice. In the view of the whole critical school, the 
Pentateuch is at best an ordinary book, at worst a field for 
practising their quaint arithmetical exercises. In my view, it 
is not primarily a piece of literature at all; it is a piece of 
statesmanship, and must be judged as such. 1 While, there- 
fore, I recognize that it is impossible for anybody now to 
dive into the mind of Moses so far as to be able to assign 
precise reasons for the position of each individual command 
in the whole complex body of legislation, I believe that atten- 
tion to the considerations that must have been present to the 
lawgiver's mind, aided by a careful study of many points 
that have hitherto escaped notice, will enable us not merely 
to answer Dr. Driver's arguments, but also to throw new 
light on problems that have hitherto remained unsolved. 

If we would understand the Pentateuch as a piece 1 of states- 
manship, we must first consider what object Moses had in 
view, and what were the circumstances that conditioned his 
work. About his ideal there can be no doubt. It was to make 
the children of Israel a nation holy to the Lord, their God. 
This was really a twofold, task. He had to make the Hebrew 
tribes a nation. He had also to make them a holy nation. 
The first part of that ideal and the means he took to* accom- 
plish it, I do not propose to develop here. It has not sufficient 
bearing on the subject of this paper; and its proper consid- 
eration would involve tracing the forces that had been at 
work for centuries to make the Israelites of the Mosaic age. 
But the latter part — the making of a holy nation — is the 

1 It will be understood that, in saying this, I do not touch any 
question of inspiration. The Pentateuch being intended to influ- 
ence the conduct of human beings, we are entitled to examine the 
means adopted to secure this end, and in doing so we are in no 
wise encroaching on the domain of theology. Moreover, when I 
speak of Moses as giving laws, I must not be taken as intending 
to express any doubt as to the inspiration he enjoyed. 



174 Pentateuchal Studies 

key of all the institutions that puzzle the critics. It meant not 
merely that the Israelites must be taught to worship the Lord 
as their God, and the One and Only God, but that rules must 
be laid down to make them " clean " and " holy " in accord- 
ance with the notions of that age. 1 Moreover, it was neces- 
sary to stamp the impress of the peculiar relationship between 
God and Israel on every portion of the legislation. 

Turning next to the surrounding circumstances, various lim- 
itations at once become noticeable. Nobody would expect to 
find in the Pentateuch rules that were utterly unsuited to the 
social and economic state of Israel in the days of Moses. That, 
then, is one limitation ; there are others not less important. 
It is one thing to lay down laws, another to procure obedience 
to them. A lawgiver who enacts rules that run counter to 
the thoughts and wishes of his subjects only makes it certain 
that his work will become a dead letter. " John Marshall has 
delivered his judgment; let him now enforce it, if he can." 
So spoke President Jackson, of the United States, of a de- 
cision of the Supreme Court ; and less exalted individuals than 
heads of states have often reduced laws to impotence. A case 
in point may be quoted from the legislation of the Penta- 
teuch. We know from Jeremiah, that, though the law com- 
manding the manumission of Hebrew slaves six years after 
their purchase was observed for a short time after the redis- 
covery of the book of the Law, it was speedily broken again. 
A third limitation is to be found in the habits and ideas of 
the age. There is progress in legal ideas and devices, as in 
other human thoughts and inventions. Thus a system of 
procedure that depends largely on writing will be unknown 

1 It was, of course, also necessary to provide a number of rules 
to deal with matters that arise in every society, such as theft; 
but, as no question arises on these, they may for our present pur- 
pose be left out of consideration. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 175 

or impracticable in an age when writing is not in common 
use. 1 In such an age, too, there can have been no such thing 
as a law of forgery. But there are two points to which par- 
ticular attention must be drawn, because a grasp of them is 
important to the proper appreciation of the Mosaic legislation. 
The first is that ancient law knows nothing of any remedy 
for apprehended wrong. If I have good ground for believing 
that my neighbor is about to trespass on my land, a mature 
system of law may in certain circumstances allow me to obtain 
— not merely damages for the injury his past trespasses may 
have caused, but also — an injunction, i.e. an order to prevent 
his doing so. If he disobeys that, he will be sent to prison. 2 
The injunction is unknown to early law, and is alien to its 
ideas. The want of such a remedy is very obvious in the 
Mosaic legislation. A man ill-treats his servant or slave. If 
the injury is very bad, a remedy is given. The slave is to go 
free. But in other less severe cases what is to be done? For 
lack of adequate machinery, the courts can do nothing ; and so 
we find merely appeals to the individual's religion, or con- 
science, or to public opinion. Thus, in the case of insolvent 

x It is abundantly clear that writing was widely diffused in the 
Mosaic age, but it is not less clear that it was not in extensive 
use among the Israelites. In this respect their position in Egypt 
may not inappropriately be likened to that of the barbarian in- 
vaders of the Roman Empire in the midst of the Romanized na- 
tives of the various provinces. See Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 
66-67. 

2 In criminal law there is machinery for preventing breaches of 
the peace, but it is sufficient for our present purpose merely to 
notice the more perfect civil remedy of the injunction, which is 
applicable in the case of certain civil wrongs. It will be under- 
stood that in my remarks the injunction must be taken as simply 
a type of possible machinery for preventing apprehended wrong 
irrespectively of whether that wrong would now be regarded as 
civil or criminal or both in any given modern community. 



176 Pentateuchal Studies 

debtors, who were de facto though not de jure slaves/ we read : 
" Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy 
God'' (Lev. xxv. 43). " He shall not rule with rigor over 
him in thy sight" (Lev. xxv. 53). This example also illus- 
trates my second point, which is even more important. It is 
not only impossible adequately to safeguard for the future 
the slave who has been somewhat maltreated by his master; 
no satisfactory punishment is provided for the offense already 
committed. Why? Because there was no strong central 
government, no police, little or nothing of what we mean by 
the " state." Before Moses there had been no central govern- 
ment at all. After him the central government was either 
weak or in abeyance till the foundation of the kingdom. " In 
those days there was no king in Israel, every man did that 
which was right in his own eyes." Many consequences flowed 
from this. In ancient Israel, as in all early societies, criminal 
law was the business of the private individual, not of the 
state. Theft was punished by such reparation in property 
as would overcome the feeling of vengeance which would 
otherwise have led to bloodshed. The punishment of a 
murderer was primarily the business of the avenger of blood, 
and the most that law could hope to do was to step in 
and regulate the feud. 2 In other spheres, too, we see the ab- 
sence of the central power. An excellent example is afforded 
by the sabbath year. The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus 
gives us the land laws and also the rules relating to the sab- 
bath year. A modern legislature would have no difficulty 
about such an enactment. Punishments would be provided for 
all persons who should cultivate their land in the seventh year ; 
an army of officials would watch over the execution of the law ; 

1 See Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 5-11. 

2 Studies in Biblical Law, chap. iv. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 177 

and the man who dared break it would have to reckon with 
the courts. But in the Mosaic age the necessary machinery 
was not merely non-existent ; it was impossible, — though, for 
people who had seen the Egyptian system of administration, 
it was perhaps not quite inconceivable. The only substitute 
available was an appeal to religion ; and, accordingly, the dis- 
course in the next chapter contains threats of exemplary pun- 
ishment by God in the event of non-observance of the law. 
The case is the more interesting because the discourse is 
silent about the jubilee laws, which are also to be found in 
the preceding chapter. They — in contrast to the laws of the 
sabbath year — were jural laws, that is, laws which the courts 
were intended to enforce: and there would be powerful hu- 
man motives and influences at work to secure their observ- 
ance. Hence an appeal to religion was not so necessary. 

A fourth limitation of a lawgiver's power — the last I 
propose to notice — is to be found in the nature of the diffi- 
culties which may be experienced in procuring sufficient 
proof of an offense. Moses was desirous of preventing 
abuses of the incapacity of a blind man ; but, from the na- 
ture of the case, there would be a difficulty about evidence. 
The blind man could not identify the offender. Hence here, 
too, we find appeals to religion : " Thou shalt not put a stum- 
bling-block before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God" 
(Lev. xix. 14). x "Cursed be he that maketh the blind to 
wander out of the way" (Deut. xxvii. 18). 2 

1 The first part of this verse, "Thou shalt not curse the deaf," 
also illustrates the remarks in the text. 

2 Perhaps this principle is seen even more clearly in the first of 
the twelve curses, " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or 
molten image . . . and setteth it up in secret." It could not be 
contended that the lawgiver limited the curse to secret idols, be- 
cause he had no objection to public images, but the latter could 
be dealt with under the ordinary law, while in the former the 



178 Pentateuchal Studies 

On the other hand, while the task of the legislator was 
rendered more difficult by all the limitations we have just 
considered, it was partly aided by a method that, so far as 
I know, is unique. Many peoples have had laws that they 
have attributed to some deity, but I am acquainted with no 
other instance in which laws are presented in the form of a 
sworn agreement of a peculiar type — called by the Hebrews 
a " covenant " — between the nation and a god. Now there 
are obvious differences between sworn agreements made with 
God and similar agreements made by men. Either of two 
men may break his oath ; but, in the covenants with God, 
only the people could prove false to their word. Again, if 
two men enter into an agreement, they may call on One who 
is outside the agreement to enforce its observance by pun- 
ishing whichever of the two may break his covenant; but, in 
a covenant with God, the only question of that nature that 
could arise would be, How will He reward obedience or 
punish its opposite? Hence, in each of the great covenants 
with God, we find, after the terms of the agreement, a dis- 
course intended to procure obedience setting forth the results 
of observance of the covenant and of the reverse. As this 
takes the place of a jurat in an ordinary oath, I have ventured 
to term it a quasi- jurat. An excellent instance of it may be 
found in the discourse of Leviticus xxvi., to which reference 
has already been made. As an aid to the task of Moses to 

question of evidence made this difficult or impossible. In all the 
twelve curses there is some practical difficulty in the way of 
action by the courts. The difficulty of proof in the case of some 
of the offenses is a commonplace with lawyers even at the present 
day. The repeated commands not to wrong strangers, widows, 
and orphans are due to a similar cause. It is evident that all 
three classes would experience difficulties in obtaining justice. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 179 

secure obedience, we may suppose its effect to have been con- 
siderable. 1 

We may now proceed to apply these preliminary observa- 
tions to the legislation of the Pentateuch. It will be easiest 
at once to dismiss from consideration those decided cases in 
which some difficulty arose and was solved; as, for instance, 
the question what was to be done where men were disquali- 
fied by ceremonial impurity from celebrating the Passover 
at the proper time. Such cases are sufficiently explained by 
their historical setting; and Englishmen and Americans are 
too familiar with the operation of a system under which law 
is made by the courts as cases arise for decision to require 
any lengthy discussion of this feature. The curses, too, have 
already been noticed. But with regard to the rest of the 
rules the position was more difficult. They were not all 
equally likely to find ready obedience. Some were, from this 
point of view, practically indifferent, if I may so express my- 
self — that is, the people would obey, and the courts could 
easily enforce, any rule that was reasonably adapted to the 
requirements of the age. 2 For instance, the land laws, the 

1 See, as to the covenants, Studies in Biblical Law, chap. ii. I 
cannot refrain from noticing one of the other very characteristic 
instruments of persuasion employed by Moses — the appeal to his- 
tory. It is used with great oratorical effect in its subtlest form 
in such a passage as Deut. xiii. 6 : "And that prophet . . . shall be 
put to death : because he hath spoken rebellion against the Loed 
your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and re- 
deemed thee out of the house of bondage." Surely everybody must 
appreciate the appeal to the gratitude and the historic pride of 
the people — and of every individual member of that people — in- 
volved in these words, and their consequent power to dispose men 
to watch over the enforcement of the Law. 

2 Every law is occasionally broken ; but there is a difference 
easily apprehended between a law which becomes a dead letter, 
and another law, which, though habitually observed, is occasionally 



180 Pentateuchal Studies 

law of succession, and most of the " dooms " contained in 
Exodus xxi. fT. would not be likely to meet with opposition. 
In many cases it is important to have some uniform rule, and 
the exact nature of the rule is less important. But in other 
instances Moses had to reckon with more or less potent hu- 
man feelings which would be ranged against him. Thus the 
mitigation of the blood-feud by the institution of cities of 
refuge would be likely to run counter to a strong desire either 
for vengeance or for compensation: and the rule that a He- 
brew slave was to be manumitted after six years' service is 
in violent opposition to one of the most abiding sentiments 
of human nature — the desire for gain. These considerations 
necessarily dominated the form of the legislation, which we 
may (with the exceptions already noted) arrange for conven- 
ience in four groups. These four groups consist of: — 

1. The terms of the covenant at Sinai contained in Exodus 
xix.-xxiii., together with Exodus xxxiv. 10-26 (in which it 
was renewed after the episode of the golden calf), and Num- 
bers xxxv. 9-34 (containing the law of cities of refuge as 
foreshadowed in Ex. xxi, 13). 

2. Leviticus xxv.-xxvi. (containing what may fairly be 
called the land covenant). 

3. The covenant of Deuteronomy. 

4. The rest of the legislation. 

First, as to the second group. It would seem that, the 
land having been promised to Abraham in a covenant, the 
laws specifically relating to the land necessarily became terms 
of that covenant. Accordingly, Leviticus xxv. and xxvi. 

broken. Thus in this country the bulk of the inhabitants observe 
the law which forbids the unjustifiable taking of human life ; but 
there are some murderers, and of these only a portion are suc- 
cessfully brought to justice. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 181 

contain agricultural regulations, the law of land tenure 
(including the tenure in Levitical and other cities), closely 
related laws for the relief of distressed peasants, and rules 
designed for making the land a fitting abode for God's Sanc- 
tuary. 1 The arrangement and connection of thought are 
here obvious. 

The other two covenants are equally easy to understand. 
The contents of Exodus xxi. ff . appear to be designed pri- 
marily for judges and heads of families to commit to mem- 
ory. It is broadly true that these chapters contain the 
private law — including, as above explained, the criminal law 
— enacted in the Mosaic age, and, in addition, certain brief 
religious and other rules that it behooved every head of a 
family to know by heart. The style is extraordinarily terse — 
as in other ancient codes that were committed to memory 
— and well suited for the purpose suggested. Deuteronomy, 
on the other hand, was intended for public reading to the 
people. It, too, was written in a style that was singularly 
well adapted to its purpose, and therefore very different from 
that of Exodus xxi. ff., since it is one thing to compose a 
speech which shall impress men's minds and mold their opin- 
ions by its argumentative and oratorical power, and quite 
another to frame legal rules in a form suited for memorizing. 

From this, the following generalization may be made. 
Taking the great body of jural law — i.e. laws for the courts 

1 When this is grasped, Dr. Driver's point as to the non-mention 
of the jubilee and Levitical cities falls to the ground. Indeed, as 
the sabbath year is not mentioned in Deuteronomy, while it oc- 
curs in Exodus and Leviticus, we should on critical principles be 
justified in arguing that Deuteronomy must be earlier than JE, 
and that it was not till after Deuteronomy that the sabbath year 
was introduced by literary forgers. A place for everything and 
everything in its place is a maxim by which no critic has ever 
dreamt of testing the Mosaic legislation. 



182 Pentateuchal Studies 

as contrasted with moral precepts, sacrificial rules, etc. — 
and including the outlying provinces of jurisprudence, such 
as constitutional law, laws of war, administrative law — we 
find land laws in the land covenant, private law in Exodus, 
public law, and those rules of private law which depended 
for their validity on the force of public opinion or were de- 
signed to mold that opinion in Deuteronomy. 1 To this gen- 
eralization, there are — subject, of course, to what has been 
said about the decided cases — only two classes of exceptions. 
The first consists of repetitions or apparent repetitions ; the 
second of a very few rules of jural law, which are found in 
Leviticus and Numbers. On examination, the apparent repe- 
titions turn out to be due very largely to the anticipated diffi- 
culty of securing obedience to rules that were opposed to 
strong human feelings. 2 The other class of exceptions is 
trifling in bulk, and consists of Numbers xxx. and a few 
verses in Leviticus xviii.-xx. Without wishing to push our 
generalization too far, we may go some way towards under- . 
standing these instances, even on the materials we have. 
Numbers xxx. lays down the law relating to oaths and vows 
— methods of entering into business and other engagements 
that were more important in early societies than at the pres- 
ent day — and is significantly addressed to the " heads of 
the tribes of the children of Israel." We do not know enough 
of the constitution of the courts in early Israel to be certain 
what this meant. But the rules laid down in this chapter are 

1 This motive is very strikingly illustrated by such a passage 
as Deut. xxi. 18-21 (law of rebellious sons), where the thought 
of the influence of the proceedings on public opinion is actually 
expressed, " and all Israel shall hear, and fear" ; and also by 
the phrase " thus shalt thou put the evil from the midst of thee." 
In the latter, moreover, we see the idea of the unity of the people 
well brought out. See, further, Studies in Biblical Lav/, chap. v. 

2 Op. cit., pp. 107-109. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 183 

far more detailed than most of the jural laws, and this, com- 
bined with the heading, suggests that the whole subject was 
outside the competence of the ordinary courts; or, at any 
rate, that the rules it contained were intended primarily for 
a more limited audience than that to which Exodus xxi. ff. 
was addressed. The passages in Leviticus will be considered 
later. 

The remaining contents of Exodus xxi. ff. may be class- 
ified roughly under three heads — as dealing with either sa- 
cred seasons, or sacrifice, or moral and religious duties. In 
every one of these cases it is true that we have a sort of 
precis (fitted for oral transmission) of the principal matters 
that every head of a household should know ; but it is also 
true that every sort of detail is, so far as possible, omitted. 1 
Everything that was too bulky — as, for example, the list of 
forbidden animals — was dealt with in one or more of three 
ways. Either it was relegated to Deuteronomy, 2 or it was 
included in what may fairly be called the priestly section of 
the Pentateuch, or finally it was placed in a chapter that 
appears to have been intended for public use — Leviticus xix. 
It should be noticed that this chapter is specifically addressed 
to "all the congregation of the children of Israel" (cf. Ex. 

1 It is almost universally recognized now that Ex. xx. 24-26 deals 
with lay sacrifice, and hence it appears most appropriately in its 
present position. Deuteronomy xvi. 21-22 deals with the same 
subject, and it is impossible to say with any certainty why it 
should not have been put in Exodus. It would be easy to hazard 
a conjecture, but, as already explained, it would not be possible 
to account exactly for the position of every individual precept; 
and unsupported conjectures on small points of detail would only 
have the effect of obscuring the broad outstanding principles that 
are obviously true. 

2 Here we may conveniently notice that Deuteronomy contains 
many commands concerning relatively small details, e.g. xxii. 5-12. 



184 Pentateuchal Studies 

xii. 3), and that in form it largely recalls the characteristics 
of poetry. 

We do not know enough of the customs and ways of the 
Mosaic age to deal with these divisions of the subject with 
as much certainty and detail as with the jural laws. Thus, 
in Deuteronomy, we find the rule : " Thou shalt not sacrifice 
unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blem- 
ish, any evil-favoredness " (xvii. 1). We can see that it is 
thoroughly in accordance with what we know of the nature 
of Deuteronomy that a broad, general principle should be 
enunciated there, leaving the details for the priestly teaching, 
but it would be pure guesswork to attempt to assign any rea- 
son, for its presence in Deuteronomy rather than in Exodus. 
On the other hand, it will be easy, when we have consid- 
ered the characteristics of the fourth great group of the 
legislation, to see by an example what means were employed 
by Moses to put forward the rules relating to particular sub- 
jects in the form best suited to secure obedience without lay- 
ing too great a strain on the memory or capacity of the 
ordinary Israelite. 

In examining the fourth group, we see that here, not less 
than in the other three cases, certain great principles stand out. 
First, it is here that we must look for what, in analytical 
jurisprudence, would be termed occasional (as opposed to 
general) commands, or commands which are not laws at all. 
All transitory precepts — commands to do a thing once for 
all — are naturally omitted from the three covenants. Under 
this head fall the commands to consecrate a priesthood, to 
construct the dwelling with its appurtenances, to divide the 
land. It is clear that nothing would be gained by including 
such matters in one of the great covenants, while the inser- 
tion of what was transitory could only weaken the force and 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 185 

permanent value of those remarkable collections. But when 
we subtract the occasional commands, we find that we may 
conveniently arrange what remains under three heads: (1) 
regulations internal to the priestly tribe and the sanctuary; 
(2) sacrificial details, and particularly procedure; (3) mat- 
ters so technical and complicated that they could not be put 
before the people without the teaching of some class specially 
trained for the purpose. These groups overlap. The part to 
be played by a priest in connection with some sacrifice might 
be viewed as a matter internal to the priestly tribe, or as a 
sacrificial detail, or as something too technical to be conven- 
iently embodied in a book that was to be read to all ; but that 
does not make it any the less useful to have some such gen- 
eral principles enunciated. 

The first of our three heads causes no difficulty. Such 
subjects as the internal organization of the priestly tribe, the 
national sacrifices commanded in Numbers xxviii., xxix., the 
details of the ritual to be observed by the priests, would not 
naturally find a position in any collection intended for pop- 
ular or judicial use. 1 But the second head brings us to a 
distinction which is quite unknown to biblical criticism — the 
distinction between substantive law and procedure, which 
may best be made clear by examples. I have a right to the 
enjoyment of my property — that is substantive law; but if 
X interferes with that right, the particular steps I may take 
to obtain legal redress (as by issuing a writ and going 
through all the necessary subsequent stages of an action) are 
procedure. So, too, with sacrifice. The Israelite is to offer 
the first of the first-ripe fruits of his land at the house of the 
Lord. That is substantive law. But the details of treatment 

1 This disposes of Dr. Driver's argument from the silence of 
Deuteronomy as to the distinction between priests and Levites. 
See, however, infra, No. 20. 



186 Pentateuchal Studies 

of the first-ripe fruits when presented are mere procedure 
Two further points should be noted as being germane to the 
present discussion. There may often be a great difference be- 
tween substantive law and procedure from the point of view 
of securing obedience. Thus, an Israelite might be tempted not 
to offer a particular offering; but if he decided to make the 
offering, he would have no motive for departing from the 
prescribed procedure. 1 Secondly, he would have very little 
choice in the matter. The priest would be there to see that 
he did the right thing. It is very striking that, in the sacri- 
ficial code contained in Leviticus i.-vii., all the rules about 
peace-offerings, burnt-offerings, and meal-offerings are con- 
cerned with procedure. It is assumed that the offerings will 
be brought; and we are told what, on this assumption, is to 
be done with them, — how they are to be sacrificed, what dues 
must be paid, and so forth. The basis of all these regulations 
is to be found in the words " when any man of you bringeth 
near a corban - [offering regarded from the point of view 

x We may also take a slightly more complicated example from 
the jural laws, one which has been the cause of some trouble to 
the critics. I am to let a purchased Hebrew slave go after six 
years of service. That is substantive law, and, moreover, law 
which I may be strongly tempted to evade or resist if opportunity 
offers, for it involves great loss for me. But assume a different 
state of affairs. Suppose that I am ready to let my slave go, but 
that he elects to stay with me forever under the provisions of 
Ex. xxi. 5, 6. The steps to be taken under that law are mere 
procedure. Not only could there be no strong motive for attempt- 
ing to evade its provisions, but there would be a natural desire 
on my part to have everything in order, so that I could prove my 
right to the possession of the slave if any question should subse- 
quently be raised. Hence the observance of the substantive law 
is earnestly enjoined in Deut. xv. 12-18 (especially ver. 18, "It 
shall not seem hard to thee," etc.), but the details of the pro- 
cedure are not repeated. 

2 On the meanings of corban, which is very inadequately treated 
in the Hebrew lexicons, see more particularly Murray's Illustrated 
Bible Dictionary, s. v. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 187 

of being presented at the religious center] to the Lord " (Lev. 
i. 2). No information can be gleaned from these chapters 
as to when any one of the offerings in question was to be 
brought. 1 In Numbers xv. 3 ff. we are given rules for the 
offering of meal-offerings and drink-offerings with certain 
sacrifices. These rules are from one point of view something 
more than mere procedure; but it is clear that they have the 
same ancillary and subordinate character, clear, too, that the 
priest would explain to the sacrificant the necessity of ob- 
serving them, and, in the last resort, compel obedience by 
refusing the sacrifice. 2 In point of fact, the evidence of the 
other books would tend rather to make us believe that meal- 
offerings were offered long before the date to> which the crit- 
ics assign D. 3 But before I pass from procedure and similar 
ancillary matters I must make one remark. Lay sacrifice 
necessarily involved rules for lay procedure, and, accordingly, 
we find in Exodus and Deuteronomy a few very simple reg- 
ulations which were obviously intended to govern lay prac- 

1 A solitary exception to the generality of this statement should 
perhaps be made in view of the cakes and wafers of Lev. vii. 
12-14; but these may not have been technically meal-offerings, 
since they do not go wholly to the priest, like ordinary meal- 
offerings (Lev. ii. 3). 

2 These considerations dispose of Dr. Driver's points with re- 
gard to the silence of Deuteronomy as to the sacrificial system 
and the meal-offering; also of the non-use of corban (a tech- 
nical word which is applicable to what is specifically brought to 
the priest, and which would be thoroughly out of place in a pop- 
ular collection), and of the general silence as to the theory of 
atonement by sacrifice. It should also be noticed that Deuter- 
onomy is silent as to bikkurim, although they were admittedly 
older than this legislation (Ex. xxiii. 16, 19; xxxiv. 22, 26). 

3 See Amos iv. 5, v. 22, 25 ; 1 Kings viii. 64 ; 2 Kings xvi. 13, 
15 (in both of which verses the drink-offering also appears, 
though that is not mentioned in Deuteronomy either) ; Judges xiii. 
19, 23; and cf. preceding footnote as to Mkkurim. 



188 Pentateuchal Studies 

tice (e.g. Ex. xx. 24-26). I mention this merely to avoid 
the possibility of being misunderstood. 

In striking contrast to the sacrifices of which we have 
spoken, stand the sin-offering and guilt-offering. The Pen- 
tateuch, instead of assuming that they will be brought, lays 
down the occasions on which they are to be brought (e.g. 
Lev. iv.). We have here substantive law as well as pro- 
cedure. This inevitably suggests that these are new sacrifices 
which were unknown in Israel before the age of Moses. But 
they are also extremely technical and detailed; and it is prob- 
ably for that reason that we find them wholly contained in 
portions of the Law which would reach the people only 
through the priests. But, be that as it may, Dr. Driver's sur- 
prise that they are not mentioned in Deut. xii. is entirely un- 
reasonable. The portion of that chapter to which he refers 
is devoted not to a catalogue of existing sacrifices, 1 but to a 
command that certain sacrifices were to be brought to the 
religious center. In the case of the sin-offering and guilt- 
offering the command was unnecessary, since they could not, 
by any possibility, be offered without a priest. An ordinary 
animal sacrifice could be offered by a layman, — at any rate, 
in certain cases, — but only a priest could make atonement 
for sin. The Pentateuch never contemplates any unlawful 
priesthood, and it never provides any check on the power of 
the priests, which was consequently abused. Hence — par- 
ticularly if these were new sacrifices — no danger of their 
being offered anywhere but at the religious center could rea- 
sonably be foreseen. It is the duty of a legislator to provide 
for anticipated evils, not to draft regulations which shall look 
symmetrical on paper. 

1 See preceding footnote. Moreover, MJckurim and reshith (first- 
ripe fruits and first-fruits) are not mentioned here, although they 
certainly existed. See, further, Deut. xviii. 4; xxvi. 1-11. 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 189 

The last of the three overlapping groups of the priestly 
legislation consists of technical matters and details. Of these 
the law of leprosy is an admirable example. It will be seen 
at a glance that the regulations are far too specialized and 
complicated to be administered by a chance elder. Again, 
matters relating to Nazirites, the rules as to jealousy, pro- 
hibited degrees of relationship and many other matters were 
too elaborate and technical to be enforced or even taught 
without the assistance of a special class. And this leads me 
to speak of the occasional rules of jural law which are to be 
found in Leviticus xviii.-xx. Chapter xviii. contains but one 
verse which may be a jural law (ver. 29). The penalty is 
expressed in the words " shall be cut off from among their 
people." In view of such passages as xx. 3, " I will cut him 
off from among his people," it is impossible to say with cer- 
tainty whether or not this verse contains a direction to the 
courts. A perusal of the whole chapter shows that the power 
of the courts is not the force on which reliance is primarily 
placed to secure obedience to the commandments embodied in 
it ; but it is quite easy to understand how the secondary means 
of obtaining obedience came to be mentioned in a short exhor- 
tation to observe the commands there laid down. In the case 
of chapter xix., the exceptions to the principles enunciated 
above are merely formal, not real. In verses 5-8 we find 
rules relating to peace-offerings; and it is said that if one 
eat of a peace-offering at all on the third day, " that soul 
-shall be cut off from his people." This probably means 
that the death-penalty is to be inflicted; but the context 
makes it clear that the passage is primarily a rule of sac- 
rifice, and only incidentally a jural law. Similarly verse 
20 requires, not that the courts shall take action in a 
specified case, but that they shall take no action ; " they shall 



190 Peniateuchal Studies 

not be put to death . . . and he shall bring his guilt-offering." 
In so far as this is a rule prohibiting the courts from acting, 
it may be regarded as jural law; but, obviously, in the main 
it is a sacrificial law. Chapter xx. also contains some jural 
laws; but they are mixed up with commands to which no 
penalty is attached, and with laws of God which are to be 
enforced by such sentences as " they shall die childless." A 
comparison of the jural laws with the provisions on the same 
topics contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy admirably illus- 
trates the manner in which Exodus is confined to the tersest 
possible utterances, and how, where detailed rules were de- 
sirable, the priests were, if possible, used for their transmis- 
sion. The legal contents of this chapter are entirely concerned 
with offenses that stand in special relation to religion, — 
giving children to Molech, witchcraft, and sexual offenses. 
A glance at the following table will bring out two points that 
I have endeavored to emphasize: first, the extreme terseness 
of the Sinaitic covenant document, and its suitability for 
memorizing; and, secondly, the tendency to put details that 
were connected with religion, not in one of the covenants, but 
in portions of the Law that were to be taught by the priests : — 

Ex. xxi. 17 (a jural law) 5 words 

Ex. xx. 14 (command) 2 " 

Ex. xxii. 19 (18) jural 

law 6 " 

Ex. xxii. 18 (17) (com- 
mand) 3 " 

With regard to the relation of this chapter to Deuteron- 
omy, it should be added that two passages in this chapter 
(verses 2-5 and 11) have parallels in that book (Deut. xviii. 
10 and xxii. 30). In both cases the jural laws are to be 
found in Leviticus xx., and Deuteronomy merely lays down 
commands which would influence public opinion. Further, 



Lev. xx. 


9 


16 words 


Lev. xx. 


10 


15 " 


Lev. xx. 


15-16 


27 " 


Lev. xx. 


27 


16 " 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 191 

some of the other jural laws contained in this chapter are 
directed against crimes that are also dealt with in the curses 
of Deuteronomy. The other offenses mentioned are also kin- 
dred to those denounced in Deuteronomy and Exodus. So 
that, altogether, when this chapter is examined, it affords an 
interesting illustration of what has already been said, viz. 
that principles and matters intended to influence public opin- 
ion are found in one or other of the two covenants, while re- 
ligious details are dealt with by the priestly teaching. 

It will now be obvious why there is no occasion in Deu- 
teronomy to mention the distinction between priests and 
Levites, 1 and why it is not to this book that we must look for 
sacrificial details. One point, however, calls for special no- 
tice. Dr. Driver has obviously been struck by the fact that 
the Day of Atonement is not mentioned in Deuteronomy. I 
believe that the views held by the critics have in this instance 
been colored very largely by their knowledge of modern 
Judaism. At present the Jewish year does culminate in the 
Day of Atonement; indeed (and this curiously illustrates a 
point that I wish to make), that institution has such a grip 
of the Jew that it is the last observance that he throws off. 
The great Fast is kept by many a man who habitually neg- 
lects sabbaths, festivals, dietary laws, and all the other Jew- 
ish observances. But we must not allow ourselves to think 
that, therefore, it should be dwelt on repeatedly in the Pen- 
tateuch. On the contrary, there was every reason why it 
should be passed over lightly. It laid no particular strain on 
the people and required no great sacrifice of time, labor, or 
property. It occurred only once a year; it was therefore 
not so likely to be broken as the weekly Sabbath. It called 
for no migration from home ; and hence it was not as burden- 
1 See, however, infra, No. 20. 



192 Pentateuchal Studies 

some as any one of the three festivals. It involved no loss 
of property; and it was consequently far less onerous than 
the law of firstlings. Where, indeed, was the temptation to 
break it ? To this must be added two further remarks. It is true 
that the Israelite was to rest and afflict his soul on that day; 
but it is noteworthy that he is not required to take other ac- 
tion of any kind, either by bringing a sacrifice, or by offering 
some special prayer, or by making a pilgrimage. No doubt 
in Leviticus xxiii. 27 we find the words " ye shall offer an 
offering made by fire unto the Lord " ; but the reference here 
would seem to be not to any offerings of individual Israelites, 
but to the public or general offerings ordained in Numbers 
xxix. 8. On the other hand, a glance at Leviticus xvi. shows 
that that chapter contains elaborate directions as to the cere- 
monial to be observed at the religious center. Important as the 
Day of Atonement undoubtedly was, it is clear that it could not 
originally have played any great part in the life of the indi- 
vidual or required much from him. The other remark I wish 
to make goes to the root of many observations of the critics. 
They have assumed that Deuteronomy xvi. contains a calen- 
dar. 1 Even on their own theories, this is manifestly untrue, 

*Dr. Carpenter in the Oxford Hexateuch, vol. i. pp. 53-54: "The 
calendar of the annual feasts is repeated no less than four times. 
It is ordained in nearly parallel terms in the two collections of 
Covenant-words Ex xxiii and xxxiv. It is enjoined with rich hor- 
tatory additions in Deut. xvi. It is elaborately expounded in Lev 
xxiii, where two new items of high significance are added to the 
list." 

With regard to Ex. xxxiv., it will be seen that, on the renewal 
of the covenant, which had been avoided by the worship of the 
golden calf, certain ordinances of the Sinaitic covenant were re- 
capitulated. The point to notice is that the jural laws which 
would be enforced by the courts, and the Decalogue, which had 
been spoken by God, are omitted, while stress is laid on what may 
be called religious precepts in a narrow sense. So far as can be 
judged, it would seem that some of these were particularly bur- 



Deuteronomy and the Arguments from Silence 193 

because no mention is made of either sabbaths or new moons 
in that chapter. Hence it would be impossible to draw any 
conclusion from the fact that the Day of Atonement is not 
mentioned. But an examination of the chapter shows that 
it is mainly directed to insuring three annual pilgrimages to 
the religious capital on the three great Festivals and to 
giving the necessary incidental directions, so that any mention 
of an occasion on which the Israelite was not to make a 
pilgrimage or bring an offering would be utterly out of 
place. 1 

In conclusion, we may illustrate the practical application 
of what has been said by examining the distribution of the 
provisions relating to firstlings. First, the great historical 
event of the slaying of the first-born, and the consequent de- 
liverance from Egypt, is made the occasion of a command to 
the people to sacrifice all firstlings (Ex. xiii. Iff.). It requires 
no great imagination to realize the effect of this appeal to 
the gratitude and the historical consciousness of the people. 
Then, when the people have proved false to their covenant 
with God, advantage is taken of the renewal of the compact 
to impress upon them the obligation once more (Ex. xxxiv. 
19 ff.). In the law of redemption we naturally find some 
provisions about the redemption of firstlings (Lev. xxvii. 
26-27), and in Numbers we meet with enactments regulating 
the due payable to the priests (Num. v. 9-10), and its subse- 

densome, — like the law of firstlings, the Sabbath, and the pil- 
grimage Festivals, — while there must have existed very consid- 
erable danger of others being broken, owing to the circumstances 
of the age and the disposition of the people, e.g. the prohibition of 
idolatrous worship. 

1 With regard to Dr. Driver's argument as to the non-mention of 
the Tent of Meeting, I would point out that it was a tent, and not 
designed to be permanent ; so that it would not naturally find a 
place in Deuteronomy by the side of the Ark and the priesthood. 



194 Pentateuchal Studies 

quent disposition (Num. xviii. 15-18). Lastly, in the great 
popular book of Deuteronomy, which on the eve of the entry 
into Canaan lays stress on the law of the religious capital, 
we find commands to sacrifice the firstlings there, and not 
locally (Deut. xii. ; xv. 19 fl.) 1 It would be easy, did space 
permit, to take other examples, and work them out similarly. 
It may seem to some that I have wandered unnecessarily 
far from the subject with which I started, or, at any rate, 
that I have chosen the longest road. In such a criticism there 
would be a measure of truth ; but yet it would be only a 
measure. It is impossible to read the works of the higher 
critics without seeing that most of their case rests on their 
exhaustive ignorance of legal matters. It is submitted that 
the true way of dispelling that ignorance is by bringing legal 
training and legal knowledge to bear on the manifold prob- 
lems of the Mosaic legislation. 

x See the Churchman, (London), for July, 1906, pp. 427-430. 



XVII 

DEUTERONOMY AND THE ARGUMENT FROM STYLE 

[From the Princeton Theological Review, October, 1907.] 

" In the ancient world the style was not the man himself, but 
a garment that he could change at will." — Norden. 

The higher critics of a certain school invariably represent 
the case for the division of the Pentateuch into' a number of 
documentary sources as resting not on any single line of in- 
vestigation but on the converging testimony of a number of 
different inquiries. Two of these perhaps may be said to 
enjoy a sort of preeminence, though for different reasons — 
the historico-legal and the literary. I have dealt with the 
former on many previous occasions. 1 In the present paper it 
is my purpose to treat of the latter with special reference to 
Deuteronomy. In doing so I shall endeavor to put my case 
in such a form as to make it intelligible to all educated read- 
ers, whether they be Hebraists or not. For reasons that will 
shortly appear, this course is very much easier to follow than 
might generally be supposed. 

An inquiry of this sort is the more desirable because I have 
quite recently given expression to my conviction that the Pen- 
tateuch is not primarily a piece of literature. What part, it 
may naturally be asked, do literary considerations play in 
determining the form of those portions with which I am 
chiefly concerned — the legislation and the passages that can- 
not be detached from that legislation? I am the more ready 

studies in Biblical Law; Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism; and 
The Origin of the Pentateuch. See, also, the Churchman (London), 
December, 1905; May, July, September, 1906; March, April, May, 
1907; Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1907. 

195 



196 Pentateuchal Studies 

to essay the task of answering this question because I believe 
that literary criticism — in the best sense of the term — will 
form an integral portion of the conservative case of the fu- 
ture. We may fairly presume that, long after the Mosaic 
authenticity of the Pentateuchal legislation is universally 
recognized, certain differences of style, together with the rea- 
sons for them, will be noted by those who devote to the Bible 
loving study. The future historian of biblical science will 
doubtless credit the higher critics with having drawn atten- 
tion to many interesting phenomena, even while reprobating 
the fantastic theories, the inability to weigh evidence, and the 
extravagant exaggerations that have marked their career. 
And this consideration helps to make clear the nature of 
the task that must be accomplished if the documentary theory 
of the Pentateuch is to be dethroned. A successful refutation 
cannot be merely destructive : it must be also — and princi- 
pally — constructive. The reason for this is not far to seek. 
If a hypothesis is proved to be untenable while no explana- 
tion is offered of the phenomena for which it was designed to 
account, another theory must inevitably arise to fill its place. 
This of course holds good only where the phenomena are real. 
Where they are simply the creation of an overheated imagin- 
ation which has been allowed to dwell too long on insignifi- 
cant details, a little timely ridicule, or the diversion of the 
mind to another set of facts, or mere lapse of time will be 
sufficient to remedy the evil. It is because the so-called liter- 
ary or philological argument of the higher critics is based in 
part on phenomena of the first class that the work of examin- 
ing this portion of their case possesses some interest. Unfor- 
tunately it must be coupled with the less congenial duty of 
pointing out the defects in their methods, equipment, and 
reasoning. 



/ 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 197 

Our first task must be to inquire, What is meant by the 
philological or literary argument? The word "philology" is 
often used to denote the science of the history of language. 
It is not in that sense that the higher critics generally use the 
term when the) put forward their "philological" argument 
for the documentary theory. It is necessary to dwell on this 
point, because many readers who are not Hebraists suppose 
that there are philological grounds (the term " philological " 
being used in the sense just indicated) for the divisive hy- 
pothesis. That is not so. Material drawn from the real or 
supposed history of the Hebrew language is scarcely ever put 
in the forefront of the critical case. The only striking excep- 
tion to this statement that occurs to me is to be found in an 
assertion recently made by Dr. C. A.- Briggs : — 

" The language of the four great documents is so different, 
that they must have been composed by different writers. The 
difference of language extends to a very large vocabulary, 
each of these documents having its own Lexicon. And these 
differences are not merely differences of synonym ; they are 
differences representing different centuries in the historical 
development of the Hebrew language. These documents of the 
Pentateuch represent a language that did not exist until cen- 
turies after the death of Moses. The evidence for all this has 
been given only in part in Driver's Introduction to the Litera- 
ture of the Old Testament, and in my Higher Criticism of the 
Hexateuch, and many other recent works; but it is fully 
given in our new Hebrew Lexicon, now completed, in which 
Drs. Brown and Driver and myself have carefully examined 
and classified the uses of all Hebrew words in the Old Testa- 
ment according to their historical development in the litera- 
ture. It is impossible for anyone to study the complete series 
of these words as we have done, without coming to the con- 



198 Pentateuchal Studies 

elusion which we have reached in entire concord, that Moses 
could not have written any one of the great documents of 
which the Pentateuch is composed." x 

This statement is so entirely exceptional that I think it best 
to postpone consideration of it until we have examined the 
ordinary critical argument. It will be observed that Dr. 
Briggs himself admits that " the evidence for all this " is only 
put forward in part in the recognized books on the subject, 
and his reference to the new lexicon is too vague to be of 
much value. It will be best to examine the recognized evi- 
dence before attacking the newest critical position. 

The following extract from the Oxford Hexateuch gives 
us a representative statement of the ordinary argument: — 

" But it may reasonably be expected that materials of dif- 
ferent ages, drawn from separate sources, will be marked by 
their own characteristics of style or expression. Peculiar 
turns of phrase, due to the vivacity of oral narrative, or sig- 
nificant of legal precision, or repeated by the impassioned 
earnestness of the preacher, may be found to coincide with 
different groups of narrative or law already distinguished 
from each other by incompatibilities of content. The recur- 
rence of these peculiarities becomes in its turn a warning ; and 
each additional instance, in accordance with the general law of 
probabilities, brings far more than its own individual weight. 
Moreover their effect is again heightened if there is reason 
to believe that they can be in any way connected with other 
forces of thought and life. The journalist who should lightly 
talk of ' the tendency not ourselves ' or of ' sweetness and 
light ' might safely be placed with Matthew Arnold in the 
second half of the Victorian ag~e. The teacher who dwelt on 
' the silences ' and ' the eternities ' could not have taught be- 

1 The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch, pp. 11 and 12. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 199 

fore Carlyle. A cause must be found for the different philo- 
sophical vocabulary of Coleridge compared with that of Hume. 
The devotional utterance of Watts and Doddridge is couched 
in a different idiom from that of Newman and Faber. In the 
same way if one group of chapters which there is independent 
reason to assign to the seventh century, shows marked affin- 
ities of expression with Jeremiah, and another group with 
Ezekiel, it may be possible to explain the resemblances on the 
hypothesis of the indebtedness of the prophets, but the student 
must also consider the probability that they may be due to 
the influences of separate religious schools." 1 

It will be seen that nothing is here said of phonetic evolu- 
tion or the history of words. The argument is not philolog- 
ical in the narrow sense of the word. But attention is drawn 
to the fact that there may be differences of style, and it is 
suggested that in certain circumstances there may be some 
connection between these and other forces of thought and 
life. 2 We must notice, too, that in this passage — which gives 
us a very fair and moderate exposition of the line of argu- 
ment adopted by most higher critics — several qualifications 
are introduced. It is first supposed that different groups of 
narrative or law are already distinguished by incompati- 
bilities of content. That is to say, the writer in the first 

1 The Hexateuch, edited by J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford- 
Battersby (1900), vol. i. p. 15. 

2 A writer in the Church of Ireland Gazette makes the follow- 
ing interesting comment: "A rather nice point is missed in con- 
nection with the quotation from the Oxford Hexateuch : — ' The 
journalist who should lightly talk of ... " sweetness and light " 
might safely be placed with Matthew Arnold in the second half 
of the Victorian age.' The precarious nature of the literary argu- 
ment is well illustrated here; for this identical expression is, of 
course, found in Dean Swift : — ' The two noblest things, which are 
sweetness and light.' " 



200 Pentateuchal Studies 

instance assigns to the stylistic argument an ancillary char- 
acter. Then he very fairly admits that resemblances between 
Jeremiah or Ezekiel on the one hand and certain portions 
of the Pentateuch on the other may possibly be explained 
on the hypothesis of the indebtedness of the prophets: and a 
moment's thought will convince any impartial reader that 
such a view contains nothing that is improbable. If, for ex- 
ample, Deuteronomy — whether a genuine work of Moses or 
a recent literary forgery — was discovered (or rediscovered) 
in the time of Jeremiah, it can occasion no surprise that it 
should have exercised a powerful influence on his style. A 
further claim is, however, made for the argument. " The 
recurrence of these peculiarities becomes in its turn a warn- 
ing " ; in plain English, the Pentateuch is dissected in part 
on grounds of style. 

That an argument from style is necessarily very subjective 
is a truism that need not be labored. But experience in re- 
futing other branches of the higher criticism suggests the 
necessity of inquiring whether, in this instance, those qualities 
which should mark all scholarly work have characterized the 
critical investigations. I can well remember my experiences 
on first entering on the consideration of the authorship of the 
Pentateuch. Legal studies had convinced me that there ex- 
isted a quantity of material from which the authenticity of the 
Mosaic legislation could be proved, and I read the Oxford 
Hexateuch for the purpose of ascertaining on what the crit- 
ics relied. While it was natural to expect that in legal matters 
the writers would be very much at sea, I yet supposed that 
in all other respects they would present me with work that 
would not fall short of the best achievements in other 
fields of study. As I read on, this impression was deep- 
ened. I found that their conclusions were the result of 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 201 

centuries of labor. I saw great names cited. Spinoza had 
discerned certain difficulties in simple narrative. Now if, 
since 1671, the best brains that had studied the Bible 
had been unable to answer what were alleged to be glar- 
ing discrepancies in simple narrative, was it not certain 
that no adequate reply could be found? But suddenly 
I came across assertions that no reverence for great names, 
no faith in the results of century-long study, no belief 
in the efficacy of controversy or the efficiency of controver- 
sialists, could induce me to accept without independent inves- 
tigation. Thus I read that " in the narrative of the plagues 
it will be found that one set of stories places the Israelites in 
Goshen, where the wonders that are wrought in Egypt do not 
affect them Ex viii 22 ix 26 ; while another locates them 
among the Egyptians and secures them miraculous exemption 
x 21-23." * The results of my investigation of this statement 
will be found elsewhere : 2 here it is sufficient to point out that 
a few such assertions rapidly succeed in teaching the most 
unsuspicious of readers to accept no statement of fact of the 
higher critics without first testing it for himself. I well re- 
member the horror produced in my mind by the results of 
my efforts to verify the first batch of improbable statements 
to which I devoted my attention — a horror which was only 
heightened by the transparent, honesty of the writers who 
made them. I can offer no account at' all of some of the 
phenomena I have observed, but in some cases a knowledge of 
the origin of the statements elucidates the mystery: and as 
this is a matter that must gravely affect the views taken of 
the higher criticism, it may be well to devote some lines to 
discussing the subject. As Dr. Driver's " Deuteronomy" will 

1 Oxford Hexateuch, vol. i. p. 32. 

2 Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 34-35, and Essays in Pentateuchal 
Criticism, pp. 57 ft 



202 Pentatenciial Studies 

hereafter be taken as representative of the critical position, it 
is natural to select illustrations from that work, when possible. 

The first cause of error to which attention may be drawn 
is the habit of borrowing statements from other writers — 
usually without any indication that they are not original. 
Here is an illustration : " There are only three facts mentioned 
in Dt. for which no parallel is to be found in JE: i. 23 the 
number (twelve) of the spies (Xu. xiii 2-16 P) ; x 22 the 
number of souls (seventy) with which Jacob came down into 
Egypt (Gn. xlvi 27 Ex. i 5 P) ; and x 3 acacia- wood as the 
material of the Ark (Ex. xxv 10 P)." 1 Dr. Driver is here 
arguing for the dependence of Deuteronomy on those portions 
of the Pentateuch which he assigns to the " sources " called 
JE, and its independence of the other " source " called P. 
Now whether the Pentateuch should be divided between these 
(or any) sources is a matter of opinion; but, once the division 
is effected, the question whether D mentions only three events 
that are not to be paralleled from JE is a question of fact. 
Though I have not searched Deuteronomy for the purpose, I 
can, with the help of Dr. Driver's own notes, suggest at least 
four more, viz. iii. 27, the permission to view the promised 
land from afar (see Driver, p. 60) ; viii. 2, the period (forty 
years) spent in the wilderness (see Driver, p. 106) ; ii. 2-14, 
the fact that the years in the wilderness were spent in wan- 
dering, Num. xxxii. 13 P, cf. Num. xiv. 33 P, where some 
read "wanderers" for "shepherds" 2 ; and xxix 12 (13), 
the promise to be to Abraham for a God. The last two in- 
stances are remarkable for different reasons. The wandering 
is a test case of first-rate importance; for, in Dr. Driver's 

1 Driver, Deuteronomy, p. xvi. 

2 This only involves the change of a single letter in Hebrew. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 203 

opinion, JE represents the Israelites as having remained sta- 
tionary at Kadesh for some thirty-eight years (see Driver, 
pp. 32-33), and is in hopeless conflict with Deuteronomy. I 
have elsewhere 1 shown that the text of Numbers is not in 
order, and that when scientific textual criticism is applied, the 
difficulties disappear; but, for the purpose of testing Dr. 
Driver's statements, we must, of course, postulate his position, 
and assume that there are three irreconcilable documents JE, 
D, and P. On that assumption it is vital to the purpose in 
hand to note that D agrees with P and contradicts JE. 

The other point is also very instructive. In commenting on 
Deuteronomy xxix. 12 (13), Dr. Driver expressly admits (p. 
323) that the promise " to be to Abraham for a God " is found 
in Genesis xvii. 7, S (P), but hastens to add that " there is no 
mention of a corresponding promise to' Isaac or Jacob." The 
next sentence must be transcribed : " But no doubt the reference 
is to passages such as Gn. xxii 16-18 xxvi 24 xxviii 13 f. ( JE), 
the conditions involved tacitly in the promises there recorded 
being converted here into a formula expressing them dis- 
tinctly." So that when, on his own showing, a reference is 
to P, Dr. Driver finds an allusion to something " involved 
tacitly " in passages which might contain the desired state- 
ments, but unfortunately do not. Attention should here be 
directed to the bias that characterizes this note. It affords 
the key to many problems, and goes far to explain the gen- 
eral untrustworthiness of the work of the higher critics. 

Now, at first sight, Dr. Driver's statement appears quite 
inexplicable. What, it may be asked, could have led him to 
assert that only three facts were mentioned in Deuteronomy 
for which no parallel is to be found in JE, if in his own notes 
he recognized that there were actually many more? The an- 
1 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 114r-138. 



204 Pentateuchal Studies 

swer is that the writings which pass under Dr. Driver's name 
are, in fact, often composite. It is not usual to dissect the 
publications of contemporary writers in the way in which 
the higher critics dissect the Pentateuch; but this should not 
blind us to the facts of the case. When Dr. Driver makes 
his assertion about the three facts he is apparently copying 
Cornill — seemingly without any independent investigation 
of the accuracy of that author's statement. Unfortunately he 
gives not the slightest hint that he is basing himself on the 
dictum of another writer. 

Next, the accuracy and trustworthiness of the critical work 
are greatly impaired by a cause that has already been touched 
upon — an overwhelming bias. As already explained, Dr. 
Driver believes that D — the main source of Deuteronomy — 
was dependent on " JE " and independent of " P " (including 
"H"). He appears to regard the argument from style as 
falling under two heads : ( 1 ) the argument from words and 
phrases, and (2) the argument from rhythm. He remarks 
(p. lxxvii) that the book " presents comparatively few ex- 
ceptional words," and he presents us with the first part of 
his stylistic argument in the shape of a list of " the most 
noticeable words or phrases characteristic of Deuteronomy.' , 
This embraces some seventy numbered sections, and covers 
nearly six pages of his introduction. The first sixteen may, in 
Dr. Driver's opinion, " have been suggested to the author " 
by certain sections of " JE." Now, among these, I find the 
following: " The covenant (rro) either with the patriarchs, 
or with Israel (expressing a fundamental theological idea of 
Dt.)." Dr. Driver then gives the references in Deuteronomy 
and " JE " (p. lxxix, No. 8). But he does not mention that 
in " P " the word is also very frequent in covenant passages, 
occurring, for example, no less than three times in a single 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 205 

verse (Lev. xxvi. 42) ; that some of the most important cove- 
nants are narrated in " P " only, and that it is not less a fun- 
damental theological idea in " P " — and for that matter in 
" JE " — than in " D." It may be open to question whether 
collections of words have the probative value attributed to 
them by the higher critics ; but, if they are to be used at all, 
the whole of the relevant facts should be fully and impar- 
tially stated. 

What has been said about the inaccuracy of the critical 
work applies to the other branches of their case as much as 
to the argument from style. So do some of the other con- 
siderations that must be urged: but, owing to the special 
character of their argument, our illustrations of the other 
causes that are operative to render their labors nugatory will 
be drawn exclusively from this part of their work. 

First, then, their selection of words frequently causes pro- 
found amazement. Take the following from an argument 
in the Oxford Hexateuch as to the first seven chapters of 
Leviticus : "Attention may also be called to the large group 
of cultus terms and formulae, the constant repetition of which 
is characteristic of the legal style of P: thus, Aaron's sons, 
atonement, without blemish {perfect), bring near {offer, pre- 
sent), burn, burn with fire, clean, guilt offering, heave offer- 
ing, holy, kill, lay his hand on, meal offering, oblation, offering 
made by fire, sacrifice of peace offerings/' etc. (vol. ii. p. 
144). Tt will be noted that all the above are technical terms 
or terms that are peculiarly appropriate in regulations for 
sacrifice at the religious capital. This is emphasized if we 
take the words that might appear to an English reader to be 
general words, and follow up the remarks made about them 
in the Oxford Hexateuch itself. Thus, on the word " burn " 



206 Pentateuchal Studies 

(^Vpn) we find the following - : "Ex xxix 13-Num xviii 17 
(sacrificially) forty-four times" (vol. i. p. 210); and of 
"kill" (tsriBO we read: "Ex xii 6 and onwards, forty-two 
times, ritually " (vol. i. p. 214). 1 The argument therefore 
amounts to saying that in a technical passage technical terms 
are used. To give it any force at all, it would be necessary 
to prove either that " P " would have used these terms in 
narrative, speeches, civil laws, etc., if he had composed the 
whole Pentateuch, or else that " D " or " JE " would not 
have used them in technical sacrificial regulations. It need 
scarcely be said that no attempt is or can be made to prove 
anything of the sort. 8 

A second defect in the critical work is due to the inability 
of its authors to appreciate the subtle motives that influence 
great writers. Civilians have a division of " things " that 
recurs to the mind — fungible things and non-fungible things. 
Fungible things are those quae pondere, numero, mensurave 
constant — things that are weighed, counted, or measured, — 
such as money, wine, oil, corn, bronze, silver, gold. Non- 
fungible things are all others. For the critics, words are 
mere fungible things. For great artists, they are non- 
fungible. That is the secret of many phenomena that puzzle 
modern commentators. Eye and ear — especially ear — are 
needed to appreciate the choice of words ; and a sense of 
form and an apprehension of subtle shades of meaning of 

1 In this latter case we are invited to " contrast J Ex xxxiv 25 
Num xi 22, Rje Num xiv 16, E Gen xxii 10 xxxvii 31," but with- 
out being told what inferences, if any, we are to draw from the 
contrast. Are we meant to infer that in the proposed slaughter 
of Isaac (Gen. xxii.), or in the prohibition to "kill [R. V. "offer"] 
the blood of my sacrifice" (Ex. xxxiv.), the word is not used "rit- 
ually"? 

2 Instances from Deuteronomy will be found in the appendix to 
this paper. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 207 

which no signs are to be found in the critical work. Some 
examples of some words and phrases from Deuteronomy, the 
use of which appears to me to have been dictated by consid- 
erations of euphony, will be found in the appendix. Confin- 
ing ourselves to mere single words or expressions, it is 
impossible to give instances that would be intelligible to 
readers who are not Hebraists, but if we go beyond these it 
is easy to produce a most convincing example. There can be 
few English readers who have not admired the sublime open- 
ing of the book of Genesis. Here is the usual critical version : 
" These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when 
they were created. In the beginning," etc. The explanation 
given by the Oxford Hexateuch should prove illuminating. 
" It has long been recognized that the Book of Genesis is 
primarily based upon a document containing a series of sec- 
tions introduced by the formula ' These are the generations 
of . . . ' . . .The toPdhoth [i.e. " generations of." H. M. W.] 
formula of Gen ii 4a is not appropriate to the narrative which 
follows it in ii 4b ff ., for this says nothing about the creation 
of the heavens or the earth, but deals with the formation of 
the first man after they were made. On the other hand its 
form and substance are both congruous with the account of 
the creation of the universe in i 1 — ii 3. In other sections, 
however, the formula always precedes the matter which it 
designates. It is probable, therefore, that it originally stood 
before i 1, and was transposed by the editor who combined 
the two documents, to serve as the link of combination " (vol. 

ii. P . i). 

So not only words, but sections and sentences, are to the 
critics fungible things — things quae pondere, numero, men- 
surave constant. If I borrow a sovereign, I am under an 
obligation to pay back a sovereign — any sovereign — not 



208 Pentateuchal Studies 

necessarily the actual coin I borrow. All are legal tender. 
And similarly with the book of Genesis. If I do not begin 
with one sentence, I must begin with another. All are legal 
tender, and literary considerations — using the word " liter- 
ary " in its best sense — do not enter into the question. But 
as all sovereigns conform to a certain type, so must all the 
sections of " P " in Genesis. There is no difference between 
the minting of coins and the minting of sections of Genesis. 
But what if literature is not within the jurisdiction of the 
foot-rule? How if a commentator on a great author must 
be endowed with some appreciation of literary beauty, if he 
is to perform his task successfully? 

The next cause that falls to be noticed is the lack of judg- 
ment and the inability to weigh evidence that characterize 
the application of the critical tests. For the sake of brevity, 
the first instance will be taken from Genesis, since in that 
book it is easy to find examples limited to a single verse. In 
a genealogy we read : "And Lamech lived an hundred eighty 
and two years, and begat a son" (Gen. v. 28). The whole 
of this down to " begat " is given by the Oxford Hexateuch 
to " P," but " a son " is assigned to "J " — an author who, 
with truly prophetic foresight, took the unusual step of com- 
posing the end of the sentence some centuries before " P " 
wrote the beginning. The reason given throws much light 
on the analysis. The preceding items in this genealogy all 
conform to the type "And A lived x years, and begat B." 
Accordingly we read in the note : " The uniformity of P's 
style leads us to expect here the name of Noah. The com- 
piler, however, wishing apparently to utilize J's explanation 
of it, has inserted it at this point, having no doubt found it 
in the list which traced Noah's descent through Seth iv 25 f. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Siyle 209 

That pedigree has apparently been rejected by the editor in 
favour of the more highly systematized scheme of P," etc. 
(vol. ii. p. 8). In other words, " P " could not have written 
" a son " in verse 28, because he has not done so in other 
verses, and we can feel the genius of fungible things — 
things quae pondere, numero, mensurave constant — hover- 
ing over us. It would be interesting to know what course 
was open to " P " if he too desired to give an explanation 
of Noah's name. Are the premises in any way commensurate 
to the conclusion? Would it not be easier to suppose that 
" P " could vary his language when occasion demanded than 
to postulate this extraordinary machinery of lists and com- 
pilers ? 

Another curious instance may be taken from Dr. Driver's 
statement that Deuteronomy xi. 4 follows Exodus xiv. 27 JE 
(pp. xv, xvi). He is speaking of a number of incidents of 
which the passage of the Red Sea is one, and he writes " in 
the case of some which are narrated in P as well, the terms 
of the allusion in Dt. are such as to show that the Writer fol- 
lowed JE, and not P." Here are the two passages in par- 
allel columns : — 



EXODUS XIV. DEUTERONOMY XI. 4 

27 [P] And Moses stretched 
forth his hand over the sea, 
[JE] and the sea returned to 
its strength when the morning 
appeared; and the Egyptians 
fled against it; and the Lord 
overthrew the Egyptians in the 
midst of the sea; 28 [P] and 
the waters returned, and covered 
the chariots, and the horsemen, 
even all the host of Pharaoh 
that went in after them into 
the sea. 



And what he did unto the 
host of Egypt, unto their horses, 
and to their chariots; how he 
made the water of the Red Sea 
to overflow them as they pur- 
sued after you, and how the 
Lord hath destroyed them unto 
this day. 



210 Pentateuchal Studies 

Is there any evidence which would justify the statement 
that Deuteronomy is here based on " JE," to the exclusion of 
" P " ? Or, indeed, is there here any evidence which would 
justify any inference at all? 1 

( 

Two other sources of error remain to be dealt with; but, 
as they are more appropriate to the argument from rhythm, 
I proceed at once to dispose of the list of words. For this 
purpose it is necessary to look at Deuteronomy itself, and see 
what it professes to be. 

The most superficial reader of the book must be aware that 
it consists mainly of three great speeches. He will not, there- 
fore, be greatly surprised to find that the language is colored 
by this fact, and that appropriate phrases and rhythm are 
used, or that some of the terms employed appear to be pop- 
ular rather than technical. 

At the conclusion of the central and longest speech we are 
told that " these are the words of the covenant which the 
Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel " 
(Deut. xxviii. 69 (xxix. 1)). It requires no great grasp to 
enable us to understand that language appropriate to a cove- 
nant is likely to be used. 

The covenant embodied a code of laws. It is natural that 
we should find in it expressions that were proper for a law- 
giver to use. Nay, more, the task of the lawgiver was con- 

1 Strangely enough, Dr. Driver has a footnote on the next page 
(xvii) in which he says : " In xi. 4, 5 host 6^n), horses and char- 
iots, and pursued after them, are points of contact with P's narra- 
tive of the passage of the Red Sea in Ex. xiv." He then collects 
some other " points of contact," and adds : " it may be questioned 
whether these expressions are not too isolated, and too little dis- 
tinctive, to establish dependence upon P." But, what expressions 
establish the dependence of Deut. xi. 4 on JE? Where is the evi- 
dence that supports his view? 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 211 

ditioned by the circumstances of the time. The people were 
just entering a land in which idolatrous high places abounded, 
and there was grave danger that at these they would offer 
sacrifices which for religious and national reasons ought to 
be brought only to the House of the Lord. We may therefore 
expect to find emphasis laid on the law of the religious capital ; 
and this, again, must affect the language. In other ways, too, 
the historical situation will color the orator's phrases. What 
wonder if he should make frequent reference in glowing 
terms to the approaching entry into the land? 

We have yet another piece of information about the book 
which must be taken into account. The book contains a code 
of law addressed to the people in the form of a speech. But 
it was not only on the occasion of its first delivery that this 
speech was to go before the people. On the contrary, it was 
to be read to them once in every seven years. Having regard 
to this, and also to the object of Moses, the nature of the peo- 
ple, and the circumstances of the time, we cannot wonder if 
he lays stress on the duty of being faithful to God, inculcating 
obedience to His precepts at every opportunity, holding out 
inducements to those who obey Him, uttering warnings as to 
the result of infidelity, and putting before the people the na- 
tional evils of impiety. 

These few and simple remarks dispose of the great bulk of 
Dr. Driver's numbered paragraphs. I have classified the par- 
ticulars in the appendix, to which those who care for the 
details may turn. Of course I do not claim that all the items 
in this classification will commend themselves to everybody. 
In many cases two or more reasons have combined to make 
the use of a particular phrase natural. The influences that 
determine a great stylist's choice of language are both numer- 
ous and varied, and it would be absurd for anybody dogmat- 



212 Pentateuchal Studies 

ically to assign reasons for the phraseology employed by a 
speaker three thousand years ago, or to pretend that he can 
hear with the ears of an Israelite of the Mosaic age. Thus 
I expect that there will be many divergences of opinion both 
as to the phrases I have selected, and those I have omitted, 
and also as to the reasons assigned. But I think that when 
all deductions have been made, it will appear that the great 
bulk of Dr. Driver's selected phrases can be accounted for by 
a few simple considerations. Assuming that Moses did at 
the end of his career make speeches, one of which embodied 
inter alia a number of laws in the form of the terms of a cove- 
nant, that the subject-matter of those laws was similar to the 
contents of the Deuteronomic code, and that the historical 
circumstances were such as the Bible represents them to have 
been, there is nothing in these lists to warrant any deductions 
as to authorship. If any critic doubt this, let me suggest to 
him a very simple test. Let him rewrite some other portion 
of the Pentateuch, say the first chapter of Genesis, as he 
thinks the Deuteronomist would or should have written it, 
with the " Hear, O Israels," and the " good lands," the " stat- 
utes and judgments " and the exhortations not to forget, 
which are gravely put forward in evidence. Or, conversely, 
let him rewrite some portion of Deuteronomy as he thinks P 
or JE would have written it. Far be it from me to affirm of 
any higher critic that in this way he would convince himself: 
but if he would only publish his results, he would speedily 
find that ridicule still has power to kill. 

But it is on yet other considerations that I rely finally to 
clinch the matter, and these may best be advanced in connec- 
tion with Dr. Driver's argument from rhythm: — 

" Of course a tabulated list of idioms cannot adequately 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 213 

characterize the style of an author ; there is an effect produced 
by the manner in which phrases are combined, and by the 
structure and rhythm of sentences, which defies tabulation, or 
even description, and which can only be properly appreciated 
by repeated perusal of the work in question. Those who have 
by this course familiarized themselves with the style of the 
Deuteronomic discourses, will be conscious how greatly it 
differs from that of any other part of the Pent. — even the 
parenetic sections of JE, which show a tendency to approach 
it, not exhibiting the complete Deuteronomic rhythm or ex- 
pression " (p. lxxxv). 

And here at last we are on bed-rock. In this instance Dr. 
Driver is right in his facts. Is he right in the interpretation 
he puts upon them or even in the method of his study? It is 
to this that the last two charges in my indictment of the crit- 
ical argument from language — other than the unique dictum 
of Dr. Briggs — are directed. 

The ideal commentary on Deuteronomy would devote a sec- 
tion of the introduction to considering the place of Moses 
among the great orators of the world and to estimating his 
oratory as literature. Corresponding to this there would be 
notes dealing with details of style from the standpoint of the 
orator's art and in the light of the comparative material. But 
the ideal is not yet realized, and probably no biblical student 
has any conception of what we miss. After all, the speeches 
of Demosthenes and Cicero and Burke are also characterized 
by a very marked rhythm. When I look at attempts such as 
those of Sievers to scan certain portions of the Bible (e.g. 
Jer. i.) that would be regarded as prose in any other lan- 
guage, I cannot help feeling that a knowledge of the existence 
of prose rhythm would probably revolutionize the attempts of 



214 Pentateuchal Studies 

modern writers to discover meters in the Bible. 1 In the case 
of some authors a good deal of work has been done of recent 
years ; and, while I must not be taken as suggesting that 
everything that is true of other prose rhythms may be ap- 
plied to Hebrew speeches, I cannot but see how a knowledge 
of other fields of literature would modify the conclusions of 
biblical students. We should no longer be presented with the 
familiar lists of words, nor should we be invited to believe 
that asyndeta add a measured dignity to style 2 ; but, on the 
other hand, we should have our attention drawn to number- 
less literary beauties to which commentators have hitherto 
been blind, and we should rise from a study of the Book with 
a truer knowledge of its place among the literatures of the 
world and a juster appreciation of its manifold greatness. 

And that leads me to my last point. The critical case rests 
on the assumption that differences of style prove differences 
of authorship. What has the comparative method to teach us 
as to this premise? Does it confirm its soundness? The an- 
swer — which sweeps away the foundations of the critical 
argument — is in the negative. There is a passage in Nor- 
den's " Kunstprosa," — not to be translated for fear of losing 
the flavor of the original, — in which the author asks what 

1 1 may be allowed to quote a sentence from the preface to the 
second edition of Blass's Attische Beredsamkeit : " Man muss 
nicht mit dem maitre de Philosophie bei Moliere hartnackig sagen: 
tout ce qui n'est point prose est vers, et tout ce qui n'est point vers, 
est prose, sondern es ist den Attikern des 4. Jahrhunderts ein 
mittelding zwischen beiden zuzugestehen wenn man den Thatsa- 
chen gerecht werden will" (vol. iii. pt. 1). Any Hebraist who 
will carefully examine such a passage as Deut. xxviii. 38-41 — its 
rhythm, its antitheses, the order of the words — will see for him- 
self that there are grounds for supposing that a similar remark 
would apply to Mosaic oratory. 

2 Driver, Deuteronomy, p. lxxxvii, note. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 215 

influence the individuality of the writer had on his style in 
the ancient world, or, in other words, how far Buffon's le 
style est I'homme meme holds good for that period. Nor den 
concludes that style was an acquired art, that individuality 
was subordinated in a far higher degree than to-day, and that 
one and the same writer could write in different styles accord- 
ing to the task in hand. 1 The case of Moses is to some extent 
different from that of any classical writer. He could have 
had stylistic models only within very narrow limits. A few 
traditions, a few songs and poems, a few " dooms " pro- 
nounced by the elders, would have constituted the sum total 
of the Hebrew literature that he found. Nevertheless, I see 
no difficulty in supposing that, when occasion demanded, he 
was capable of creating a style suitable for the matter in 
hand. After all, the purposes of the various portions of the Pen- 
tateuchal legislation are palpably diverse. While the judgments 
are written in a form suitable for memorizing (which may 
have conformed to what was usual in the traditional " dooms " 
pronounced by the courts of elders), it is obvious that no 
speech could have been composed in the same style. Here, 

a Bevor ich zum einzelnen tibergehe, habe ich nocli kurz eine 
Vorfrage zu beriihren : welchen Einfluss hatte im Altertum die 
Individualitat des Schriftstellers auf seinen Stil oder, mit andern 
Worten, wie weit gilt auch fur jene Zeit Buffons Ausspruch le style 
est Vhomme meme? Zwar hatte auch das Altertum ein Sprichwort: 
olos 6 rpdiros, tolovtos ko.1 6 \6yos, aber wir diirfeu nicht verkennen 
dass der Satz in der Praxis nieht so grosse Bedeutung hatte wie 
bei uns. Der Stil war damals eine erlernte Kunst, deren Regeln 
im allgemeinen keiner seiner Individualitat zuliebe iibertreten 
durfte, wie ja iiberhaupt das Altertum in viel hoherem Masse als 
die moderne Zeit vom Individuum die Unterordnung seiner Eigen- 
art unter die Autoritat der von hervorragenden Kunstrichtern 
sanktionierten Tradition, die Zuriickdrangung des Genial ischen, 
verlangt hat. Daraus ergiebt sich zweierlei. Erstens : die Indi- 
viduen treten zuriick hinter allgemeinen Richtungen der Zeit, 
deren Reprasentanten sie sind. Zweitens : ein und derselbe Schrift- 



216 Pentateuchal Studies 

then, necessity must have been the mother of invention. And 
in dealing with the third style — that of the great body of 
" priestly " legislation — it must be remembered that the pur- 
pose was again different. Here we are not dealing either with 
a speech or with dooms to be committed to memory, but with 
complicated and technical rules to be transmitted by a spe- 
cially trained class who would teach the people (Deut. xxiv. 
8; Lev. xiv. 54-57). It is possible to point to modern in- 
stances of similar versatility. Let the Indian Penal Code 
which was drafted by Macaulay be contrasted with the 
speeches and ballads of the same writer, and similar diver- 
gences of vocabulary and rhythm will at once become appar- 
ent. If it be urged that Macaulay came after a period of long 
literary development, I answer: (1) that it is impossible to 
lay down narrow rules which no genius can transcend, and 
(2) that no man, however gifted, could have written " dooms " 
and speeches in the same vocabulary and rhythm and made a 
success of both. A man of genius who found himself con- 
fronted with such very different tasks could not avoid creat- 
ing the means of executing them. In a word, I conceive that 

steller konnte nebeneinander in ganz verschiedenen Stilarten schrei- 
ben, indem er bald diese, bald jene 154a verwendete, je nachdem sie 
ihm fur das vorliegende Werk zweckentsprechend schien. Wir 
Moderne haben durch Verkennen dieser Thatsache vielfach geirrt, 
aber die Zeiten sind vorbei, wo man auf dies Argument hin dem 
Platon den Menexenos, dem Xenophon den Agesilaos, dem Tacitus 
den Dialogus, dem Appuleius die Schrift De Mundo und so vielen 
Autoren so vieles aberkannte, oder wo man sich dariiber wunderte, 
dass der Aristoteles der pragmatischen Schriften in seinen Dialogen 
so damonisch zu schreiben verstand. Selbst die so beliebten 
Sehlusse von der Stilverscniedenheit zweier Werke eines und des- 
selben Autors auf eine verschiedene Abfassungszeit, sind selten 
zwingend und oft durch Tbatsachen anderer Art zu widerlegen. 
Der Stil war im Altertum nicht der Mensch selbst, sondern ein 
Gewand, das er nach Belieben wechseln konnte (E. Norden, Die 
Antike Kunstprosa (1898), vol. i. pp. 11-12). 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 217 

in each case the style was merely a tool forged by Moses for 
the accomplishment of his purpose. 

We must now come back to Dr. Briggs, who claims that 
the language used did not exist until centuries after the death 
of Moses. After what has been said of the inaccuracy of the 
critical work, it is not necessary to take this claim too seri- 
ously. 1 If and when Dr. Briggs chooses to specify the facts 
on which he relies, there will be time enough to answer his 
argument; but a mere vague reference to his Lexicon is no 
sufficient clue to the evidence. Nevertheless, it is not so diffi- 
cult to answer Dr. Briggs as might appear, because it happens 
that I have myself had to examine the uses of a few of the 
words to which Dr. Briggs has devoted special attention. On 
the occasions on which I use his Lexicon (which is generally 
when I want information about some technical term), I am 
usually amazed at the backward state of lexicographical 
studies. The very first things that strike me about a word 
are usually points that have never been noticed at all by our 
lexicographers. In fact here, as elsewhere, I am separated 
from the higher critics by differences of training, of temper- 

x Here is a sample from Dr. Briggs himself: — 

"A careful study of the term mfal, as applied to law, makes it 
evident that it was the earlier usage of all the documents of the 
Hexateuch except P to regard row as the Law in general, as em- 
bracing a complex of words, statutes, judgments, commands, and 
that the use of niin, JYhifi for particular laws is post-Deuteronomic. 
Such laws are to be found only in P (see New Hebrew Lexicon, p. 
435)." (Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch (new ed. 1897), p. 255.) 
But on p. 436 of the Lexicon Dr. Briggs writes of this word: 
" law (prop, direction) : viz : of special laws, singular of Feast of 
Massoth Ex. xiii. 9 (J), sabbath xvi. 4 (J) ; of direction given by 
priests in particular case Deut. xvii. 11." It might be added that 
the language of Deut. xxiv. 8 (see Driver, ad loc.) would in itself 
be sufficient to render Dr. Briggs's theory extremely improbable. 



218 Pentateuchal Studies 

ament, and of scholarly ideals. I propose to take a single 
example of Dr. Briggs's work; and, in discussing it, I shall 
endeavor, so far as may be, to emphasize the distinctions 
between the. historico-legal methods and those employed by 
Dr. Briggs. To this end I shall marshal a number of facts and 
arguments that are quite out of proportion to the intrinsic 
importance of the statements investigated. 

" The earliest type of Hebrew law is the "Cl Word, not so 
much a particular word as a word -group — a saying, dis- 
course, utterance, sentence." x 

This statement occurs in an appendix on Types of Hebrew 
Law added to " The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch " in 
the 1897 edition, as the result of the work done for the new 
Lexicon. We are then informed that the " word " is spoken 
by God either directly, as in the Decalogue, or " immediately 
[Dr. Briggs probably means mediately. H. M. W.] through 
Moses and the prophets who succeeded him. Accordingly "»2T 
becomes the term for the message of the prophets, and later 
for the sentences of the Hebrew wise men." " These Words 
are in the second person singular of the verb, and with the 
negative, and are brief terse sentences without reasons, with- 
out specifications, and without penalty. All such additions to 
the Words are redactional." 

I proceed to outline the methods of attacking these state- 
ments. 

1. We may turn to the history and see what it has to teach 
us. The book of Genesis, for example, is full of law. To take 
a few general instances: we find traces of a law that in cer- 
tain cases a slave might inherit from his master to the ex- 

1 Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch (new ed. 1897), p. 242. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 219 

elusion of that master's collateral relations ; x we have law 
regulating conveyances of land (Gen. xxiii.), law of theft 
(Gen. xxxi. 32; xliv.), 2 law of murder, birthright, marriage, 
slavery, etc. In some cases this was customary law that may 
not have been formulated. In others — e.g. murder and 
theft — it was impossible to escape formulating it. If it be 
asked what evidence Dr. Briggs has that such laws were 
known as " words " and conformed to some particular " type " 
or were sentences spoken by God, the inevitable answer is not 
merely that he has no such evidence, but that it has never 
even occurred to him to consider the matter. Yet if it were 
true that the earliest type of Hebrew law was the " Word," 
it would be possible to show that the earliest laws were 
" Words." 

2. Even if we had no history to help us, we should know, 
from the universal experience of mankind and the nature of 
society, that the Hebrews had law as soon as a society existed. 
" It is an old saying, ubi societas ibi jus est: where there is a 
society there is law. And perhaps no better account can be 
given of what is commonly understood by law than that it is 
a body of rules expressing the claims which, in a given so- 
ciety, are held to be enforceable and are more or less regularly 
observed. When a claim is urged but is not held to be en- 
forceable, it is commonly called a moral claim as distinguished 
from a legal one. On the other hand, where no claims have 
become legal ones, there cannot be. a society in any true 
sense. ... So the maxim ubi societas ibi jus est correctly puts 
before us society and law as mutually dependent. They must 

1 Gen. xv. 2-4 ; cf. Prov. xvii. 2 ; xxx. 23 ; and, for a parallel, 
among the Waniamwesi see Kohler in Zeitschrift fur vergleich- 
ende Rechtswissenschaft, vol. xv. p. 43. 

2 Cf. Post, Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, vol. ii. pp. 
427-428, 442. 



220 Pentateuchal Studies 

have been inseparable as facts from the earliest time at which 
there was any intercourse between men, probably before there 
was any clear consciousness of the notions corresponding to 
the facts, and they are still inseparable in all departments of 
intercourse between men. Without society no law, without 
law no society." x In other words, law is the necessary ce- 
ment of every social fabric. Here, again, Dr. Briggs has 
never stopped to consider whether any society could exist for 
a single week on his " Words," or what the state of affairs 
was before these " Words " were given or forged. Yet the 
whole body of the Pentateuchal legislation presupposes the 
existence of a body of well-settled law dealing with the 
everyday occurrences of life. For example, there is no rule 
providing for the descent of chattels or live stock on the death 
of the owner. Yet we cannot infer that no owner of movable 
property ever died. The ordinary rules must have been set- 
tled long before the days of Moses, and were left practically 
untouched by the Mosaic legislation. 2 

3. The " words " to which Dr. Briggs refers are not laws 
at all. Take " thou shalt not steal." The question at once 
arises what penalty is to be inflicted on a thief. In Genesis 
and Exodus we find the following in different cases : death, 
slavery, manifold restitution. How could any court adminis- 
ter Dr. Briggs's " Words " unless there were but one penalty, 
which was inflicted in all cases of whatever nature? Not 

1 Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law, 
pp. 2-3. 

2 Deut. xxi. 15 ff. deals with some disposition in the owner's 
lifetime — thus not covering cases of strict intestacy — and presup- 
poses law permitting such dispositions. The portion given by Ja- 
cob to Joseph, and not to Reuben, is an interesting case that would 
fall within the letter — though perhaps not the spirit — of this 
law. That and other passages in Genesis prove a power of dis- 
position analogous to a testamentary power. 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 221 

only so; yet another argument is available. Some of his 
" words " deal with matters that, from the nature of the case, 
cannot possibly fall within the jurisdiction of any human tri- 
bunal. " Thou shalt not covet " is an instance. Covetousness 
is a purely mental affection; and it must be obvious that no 
man can be conscious of the mental condition of another, un- 
less and until that other gives expression to it by some overt 
act. " Thou shalt not covet " may be enforced by God or by a 
man's own conscience, but by no other power on earth. 

4. There is no sufficient reason for saying that -tm meant 
any type of Hebrew law at all, or indeed could be used as 
signifying " law," except in so far as all laws consist of words. 
When I investigated its usage, I was unable to satisfy myself 
that this was the case. On the other hand, I found that, in 
some of the passages on which Dr. Briggs would probably 
rely, it had a technical covenant meaning, expressing terms 
on which God and Israel entered into a covenant. 1 The fact 
that these terms were also Divine commands has helped to 
mislead our lexicographer. 

5. There is no evidence whatever for most of the state- 
ments made by Dr. Briggs, which are, nevertheless, put for- 
ward with the utmost confidence. Dr. Orr has recently dwelt 
on the extraordinary dogmatism of the critics. 2 Here it is 
only necessary to point to the entire absence of evidence for 
the following assertions, all of which are made or implied in 
the sentences quoted: (1) All Hebrew "Laws" once con- 
formed to a single "type." (2) The name of that type was 
"Word." (3) The "Word" was in the second person sing- 
ular, etc. (4) All additions that do not conform to this dic- 
tum are redactional. (5) All early Hebrew laws were 

1 Studies in Biblical Law, p. 64. 

2 The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 507-508. 



222 Pentateuchal Studies 

spoken by God directly or immediately (mediately?). (6) 
This is the origin of the term " Word " as applied to the mes- 
sage of the prophets or the sentences of Hebrew wise men. 
It would be easy to deal with all the other relevant state- 
ments in Dr. Briggs's appendix on Types of Hebrew Law in 
similar fashion. But it is obviously unnecessary. Sufficient 
light has been thrown on his methods to make clear what 
value should be attached to such unsupported statements as 
to the evidence of language. 

APPENDIX. 

The following table includes the bulk of the words and phrases 
relied on by Dr. Driver, and shows how a few simple and obvious 
considerations account for them : 

I. (a) Words and phrases natural to speeches, as opposed to 
narrative: Nos. 15, " Loed, thy (our, your) God" (the emphasis on 
the relationship expressed being most natural in a speech) ; 16, "The 
Loed, the God of thy (our, your, their) fathers"; 50, "The priests, 
the Levites " (to bulk of the populace); 59, "Which thine eyes 
have seen"; 60, "Thy (your) eyes are those that have seen"; 66, 
" Hear, O Israel." 

(6) Words and phrases that were probably chosen wholly or in 
part on account of the oratorical rhythm or euphony. (It is im- 
possible for any modern writer to feel sure of this, but on p. lxxxvii 
Dr. Driver himself recognizes this as the ground for the selection 
of alternative forms of words) : Nos. 19, r^K (a form of the He- 
brew word for "how?"); 27, "The stranger, the fatherless, and 
the widow" (the use of these words was of course necessitated by 
the sense, but probably the phrase commended itself by its rhythm) ; 
30, "Thy corn, and thy new wine, and thine oil" (a similar re- 
mark applies); 41, "continually" (Hebrew, "all the days"); 55, 
"the work of the hands"; 58, Tjp "midst"; 64, "that to which 

thou puttest thine (ye put your) hand"; 69,ewn "pn», "out of the 
midst of the fire" (compare No. 58). 

II. Covenant words and phrases : Nos. 7a, " a people of special 
possession"; 8, "covenant"; 13, "to swear" i references to the 
oaths contained in former covenants) ; and some of the words or 
phrases in No. 37, " statutes and judgments and testimonies," etc. 
(Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 52, 59-64.) 



Deuteronomy and the Argument from Style 223 

III. (a) Law-book words and phrases: — the other words and 
phrases in No. 37, e.g. " judgment " ; 9, " Which I am command- 
ing thee this day"; 57, "therefore I command thee" (this might 
almost equally well be put under (e)) ; 44, "thou (he) canst not" 
(z=it shall not be lawful for thee to). 

(6) Words and phrases connected with laws as to the religious 
capital: Nos. 20, "To eat before the Lord" (i.e. at the temple); 
63, "to make His Name dwell there" (cf. No. 23). 

(c) Laws for national purity: No. 24, "so thou shalt extermi- 
nate the evil from thy midst." 

(d) The duty of intense fidelity to God: Nos. 1 (a) "to love" 
God; 2, "other gods" (not to go after, etc.); 11, "take heed to 
thyself (yourselves), lest"; 14, "to hearken to His voice"; 28, 
" to cleave to " God (Deut. always in a group with words like 
" to hearken to His voice " ) ; 31, " to walk in the Lord's ways " ; 
45, the duty of fearing God inculcated ; 48, " to do that which 
is right in the eyes of the Lord " ; 49, " to do that which is evil 
in the eyes of the Lord"; 51, "with all thy (your) heart and with 
all thy (your) soul"; 53, "to turn neither to the right hand nor 
to the left," used metaphorically ; 62, the caution " not to forget " ; 
68a, " to observe to do," 68&, " to observe and do." 

(e) Exhortations and inducements to obedience: Nos. 3, "to be 
long," or "to prolong" of days (the Deut. promise upon obedience) ; 
25, " in order that the Lord may bless thee " ; 36, " and it be sin 
in thee " ; 42, " that it may be well for thee " ; 67, "And . . . shall 
hear and fear" (of the deterrent effects of punishment). 

(f) Historical reminiscences (often containing an appeal to obe- 
dience) : Nos. 5, "house of bondage"; 12, "A mighty hand and a 
stretched out arm " ; 33, "And remember that thou wast a bond- 
man in the land of Egypt." 

IV. References to the acquisition of Canaan : Nos. 4, " which 
the Lord thy (our, etc.) God is giving thee (us, etc.)," attached 
mostly to " the land," sometimes to " the ground," " the gates," 
"the cities," etc.; 6, "thy (your) gates"; 10, "to cause others 
to possess, i.e. to dispossess (the Lord, the Canaanites before Is- 
rael)"; 22, "the land whither thou goest in to possess it," "the 
land whither thou passest (ye pass) over (Jordan) to possess it"; 
38, "the good land" of Canaan; 46, "to possess" (as in Nos. 4 
and 22). 

V. Miscellaneous : There are also some phrases in this list that 
do not fall under any of the above headings, and yet are obviously 
in place in Deuteronomy; such as, Nos. 1 (&), God's love of Israel 
and 23, God's choice of Israel (both topics on which it would be 



224 Pentateuchal Studies 



natural for Moses to dilate in speeches of this nature) ; 47, " all 
Israel"; 32, "Who shall be in those days" (almost inevitable in 
a book designed to mold the future) ; 34, "thine eye shall not pity 
him" (intended to work on public opinion) ; 35, "be (ye) cour? 
ageous and strong" (Dr. Driver says: "The expression may seehi 
to be an ordinary one; but it occurs besides only in 1 Ch. xxii 
13, xxviii 20, 2 Ch. xxxii 7"; but his own references to Deuter- 
onomy are xxxi. 6, 7, 23 and iii. 28 — all in connection with 
Joshua's appointment. What could be more natural than the use 
of such a phrase by Moses in such a connection, and only in that 
connection? He also refers to five passages in Joshua which he 
regards as Deuteronomic. Of these no fewer than four deal with 
Joshua); 39, "Which thou (ye) knowest (or knewest) not"; 29, 
"As the Lord hath spoken." 



XVIII 
THE ALTAR OF JOSHUA XXII 

[From the Bibliotfieca Sacra, October, 1911.] 

One or two reviewers of " Essays in Pentateuchal Criti- 
cism " have raised a question as to Joshua xxii. Nobody has 
been found to suggest that Wellhausen and his followers are 
capable of discriminating- between a house and a mound, but 
the application of the distinction between lay altars and horned 
altars to this chapter has been the cause of some trouble, and 
I am satisfied that I have failed to express my reasoning with 
sufficient clearness. It is well, therefore, to return to the point ; 
and in order to deal with it the more satisfactorily, I propose to 
begin by quoting the ablest presentation of the difficulty that 
I have seen. It is from the pen of Professor J. Oscar Boyd, 
and will be found on page 489 of the Princeton Theolog- 
ical Reviezv for July, 1910. He writes : — 

" . . . . For instance, what about the altar of Joshua xxii. ? All 
that Wiener says about it (p. 198), is that it was because this was 
a ' horned altar ' that it awoke the resentment of the cis-Jordanlc 
tribes. Yet a reading of that chapter seems to place the emphasis, 
not on what sort of an altar it was, but on the fact that any altar 
at all was erected for sacrificial purposes other than that at Shiloh. 
The incensed tribes are pacified when they learn that the altar is 
not intended for sacrifice." 

Another reviewer went further and suggested that I was 
quite arbitrary in declaring that this altar was a horned altar. 
How could I know? 

Accordingly I shall deal with this point first. In verse 28 
we read the words " Behold the pattern of the altar," etc. 
Now the ordinary lay altar could have no fixed pattern, be- 
cause it was made -of earth or unhewn stones, and the stones 

225 



226 Pentateuchal Studies 

could not be made to conform to any fixed pattern without 
being wrought (Ex. xx. 24-26). If we turn from the law to 
the historical instances of lay altars, we find this truth illus- 
trated. A lay altar may consist of a single large stone (as in 
the case of the altar used by Saul after the battle of Mich- 
mash), or of a dozen stones (as in the case of Elijah on Car- 
mel), or of a rock (as in the instance of Manoah's altar), or 
of earth. The nature of the materials thus makes it impossible 
that any particular pattern should characterize them, just as 
it makes it impossible that these lay altars could have horns. 
A stone altar could have horns only if the stone were dressed, 
and the law provides that " thou shalt not build it of hewn 
stones ; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast pol- 
luted it." Thus no doubt is possible as to the nature of the 
object that evoked the anger of the cis-Jordanic tribes; and 
there is nothing arbitrary about my statement, though it would 
have been clearer if made in an expanded form. 

But then how about Professor Boyd's objection? Is he not 
right in saying that the " reading of that chapter seems to 
place the emphasis, not on what sort of an altar it was, but 
on the fact that any altar at all was erected for sacrificial pur- 
poses " ? I think the answer to that question is " Yes and 
no." If he will forgive my saying so, I believe that our dif- 
ficulty comes merely from the fact that we have to read this 
chapter without the background of intimate knowledge of the 
practice and circumstances of the epoch which the narrator 
naturally postulates. The result is that expressions which to 
contemporaries could have had but one meaning appear to us 
most naturally to designate something entirely different, and 
it is only when we have succeeded in recapturing something 
of the contemporary point of view that we begin to see what 
was originally intended. 



The Altar of Joshua xxii 227 

Let me digress for a moment to offer a modern illustration 
of the whole Wellhausen confusion as to altars and sacrifice. 
A Christian of our time may without the slightest difficulty 
or inconsistency engage in no fewer than three different kinds 
of prayer within the course of a few hours. He may attend a 
public service in his church or chapel, and so engage in public 
prayer. He may offer up grace at a meal or have household 
prayers, and so engage in domestic prayer. He may offer up 
his supplications to the Deity alone, and so engage in private 
prayer. It would of course be easy to prolong the enumera- 
tion of possible varieties, but these are sufficient for my pur- 
pose. No Christian to-day who is accustomed to this system 
would in reading current literature have the slightest difficulty 
in understanding references to any or all of these three kinds 
of prayer or be in any danger of confusing them. But suppose 
that the professorate of some other non-Christian planet were 
confronted with a Christian literature that contained numer- 
ous regulations relating to public prayer, and occasional inci- 
dental references to domestic and private prayer, dire confusion 
might easily ensue. That is what has happened in the case 
of the Wellhausen discussion. 

Returning now to apply this to ancient Israel, we must 
first picture to ourselves the lay altar and then contrast it with 
the horned altar. / In an article that I am contributing to a 
forthcoming Bible Dictionary I am exhibiting in juxtaposition 
a picture of a cairn of stones (used as an altar) 'and a restora- 
tion of the altar of burnt-offering, and I hope that these illus- 
trations will make it impossible for any reader of that work 
to confuse the two. Here I write without illustrations, but 
I feel confident that 'my readers must all have seen large 
stones, rocks, and mounds, and also pictures of the altar of 
burnt-offering, and if they will but recall these things to their 



228 Pentatenchal Studies 

minds they need have no great difficulty in deciding as tc 
Joshua xxii. 

Now, first of all, we read (ver. 10) that the trans- Jordanic 
tribes " built there an altar by Jordan, a great altar to see to." 
I submit that to a contemporary that would only mean an 
altar of the horned type. Why? Well, first, Jay altars were 
at that time mostly used for the nonce only. You rolled a 
stone or put together a mound, used it on one occasion, and as 
likely as not abandoned it a few hours after. But even if you 
erected your altar for more or less permanent use it was for 
your household or the village or the clan that you erected the 
altar. Now an altar that was solemnly erected by two and a 
half tribes was obviously at least as different from the ordi- 
nary lay altar as a church service is from domestic prayer. 
Assuming (as the cis- Jordanic Israelites naturally did) that 
it was intended for sacrifice, the great majority of the trans- 
Jordanic tribesmen could only use it by making pilgrimages. 
But as I have pointed out the pilgrimages of the Pentateuch 
are to be made to the House of the Lord. No contemporary 
could possibly have supposed that the distances or the circum- 
stances of the age would have permitted the majority of the 
trans-Jordanic tribesmen to use this otherwise than as a pil- 
grimage center, if the altar was sacrificial. Secondly, the 
building of an ordinary lay altar could not have been described 
in such terms. A mere stone or cairn would not have been 
" a great altar to see to." nor would its erection have been 
described solemnly as the work of two and a half tribes. 
Thirdly, if this had been an ordinary lay altar such as any 
Israelite could and did erect at any moment, contemporaries 
would never have reported it, just as we do not report domes- 
tic prayer in our newspapers, but lay great stress on the open- 
ing of a new cathedral. 



The Altar of Joshua xxii 229 

The course of the subsequent discussion by the delegation 
naturally confirms this. The concession made to the possible 
reasons of the trans-Jordanic tribes for building what was 
supposed to be an altar of pilgrimage is contained in verse 19 : 
" Howbeit, if the land of our possession be unclean/' etc. 
Write out this reasoning at length and it is as follows: " Our 
land is clean because, God's Dwelling (the Tabernacle with the 
great altar of burnt-offering) is among us. But you live in a 
territory that is geographically divided from ours by the Jor- 
dan, and you may therefore have thought with some reason 
that your land is unclean. This you have tried to remedy by 
erecting a separate sanctuary; but such a remedy is rebellion. 
Your right course is not to infringe the principle of the single 
pilgrimage sanctuary, but to move into our territory. And 
why is a second pilgrimage sanctuary so objectionable? Be- 
cause it leads so easily to the worship of false gods. Is the 
iniquity of Peor too little for us?" etc. (ver. 17). The refer- 
ence is to Numbers xxv. 2 f., " for they called the people unto 
the sacrifices of their gods ; and the people did eat, and bowed 
down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal- 
peor." There is throughout this chapter no reference to or- 
dinary lay altars. The objection is to a rival horned altar 
which should form a center of pilgrimage to the trans-Jordanic 
tribes and ultimately a center of apostasy. 

Once all this is firmly grasped, the other expressions of the 
chapter can be interpreted quite naturally in the light of the 
knowledge of contemporary circumstances that we have so 
acquired, and all difficulty disappears. The key to the whole 
thing is the visualizing of the two types of altars. Once that 
is effected, confusion becomes impossible and a context refer- 
ring to one type will never be understood of the other. 



XIX 

THE "PRIESTS" OF EXODUS XIX 

[From the BiMiotheca Sacra, April, -1910.] 

The mention of priests in Exodus xix. 22, 24, has 
hitherto constituted a very difficult problem, but material 
for its solution has recently been published. The larger 
Cambridge Septuagint records a Hexaplar note on verse 
22 according to which Aquila read ol irpeafivTepoi for ol lepeU^ 
ie. D^ptn, " the elders," for D^nan, " the priests," — a differ- 
ence of only two letters. 1 That this represents a genuine He- 
brew variant, and not an attempt to interpret the reading of 
the Massoretic text, is obvious both from Aquila' s known 
habits and also from the fact that the rabbinical theory as- 
signs a pre-Levitical priesthood to the first-born — i.e. to per- 
sons whom no interpreter could call " elders." No note has 
been preserved as to Aquila's reading in verse 24, but we 
may reasonably conjecture that there too he had " elders." 
That this reading is in fact correct is proved by the part 
played by the elders as the heads and representatives of the 
people earlier in the chapter. It is easy to see that if the 
word became slightly illegible the expressions " come near " 
and " sanctify themselves " in verse 22 might easily suggest 
priests to the mind of a scribe. 

1 This reading has now been adopted by Troelstra (De Naam 
Gods, p. 17). 



230 



XX 



PRIESTS AND LEVITES: THE FOURTH CHAPTER 
OF WELLHAUSEN'S PROLEGOMENA 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1910.] 

" For the position of the Levites is the Achilles heel of the 
Priestly Code." — Weixhausen. 

For the Wellhausen reconstruction of the history of Israel 
our present subject is second in importance only to " Sanctu- 
aries." The latter topic was disposed of in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for October, 1909, 1 and of necessity much of what is 
said concerning the priesthood was incidentally treated, for it 
is not possible to consider the places of sacrifice without some 
reference to the persons who officiated at them. Yet much 
remains, and accordingly it is proposed to devote this article 
to a correction of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis respecting 
the priesthood. 

Independent investigation of the material phenomena has 
led me to the conclusion that the conservatives and the critics 
are alike at fault. Two errors are common to both equally. 
Neither set of students have seriously attempted to apply text- 
ual criticism, and both have assumed that the traditional views 
are necessarily the only explanations possible. Yet the author 
or authors of the Pentateuchal documents are entitled to the 
same measure of justice as all other authors. It is not too 
much to ask that some trouble should be given to the task of 

a This article is reprinted as Chapter VI. of Essays in Penta- 
teuchal Criticism. (Oberlin: Bibliotheca Sacra Company; London: 
Elliot Stock.) 

231 



232 Pentateuchal Studies 

ascertaining what they actually wrote; and, further, that in 
the interpretation of their writings the plain and obvious 
meaning should be preferred to the views of any subsequent 
writer whomsoever. In addition I am of the opinion that the 
conservatives and the critics have made one great mistake each. 
The conservatives have assumed that all the statements con- 
tained in the Bible must necessarily be of equal value histor- 
ically. No doubt they have been assisted in this by the de- 
parture from the order of the Jewish canon, which does not 
place Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah in the same category 
with Judges, Samuel, and Kings. These latter books belong 
to the series of " earlier prophets " while the former are only 
hagiography. This mistake has been avoided by most of the 
critics, who, however, have more than compensated for this 
by adopting an impossible documentary theory which has 
placed sound history out of their reach. A mediating school 
have combined both positions. To save the history of the 
Chronicler they have sacrificed the history of Moses, and have 
consequently failed to do any good to either in spite of many 
shrewd observations. The present article is accordingly writ- 
ten on the basis of a frank acceptance of four main principles, 
which will find their justification as the inquiry proceeds. 
These are: (1) the Mosaic authenticity of all the Pentateuchal 
legislation, (2) subject to the modifications introduced by a 
scientific textual criticism that refuses to go a single step be- 
yond the evidence unnecessarily, but is willing to apply to the 
documents the textual principles that are recognized as valid 
in the case of all other books that depend on a MS. tradition ; 
(3) the interpretation of the statements contained in the orig- 
inal authorities in their plain and natural sense as the palmary 
guides to the meaning of those authorities, and the application 
of the ordinary canons of legal construction to the laws to be 



Priests and Levites 233 

construed; and (4) the rejection of all statements in the Hagi- 
ography that conflict with the Law and the Prophets. The 
inquiry naturally falls into sections. It is convenient to begin 
with the data of P. 

PRIESTS AND LEVITES IN THE PRIESTLY CODE 

As Wellhausen claims 1 that the position of the Levites is 
the Achilles heel of the Priestly Code, I proceed at once to the 
consideration of this topic. Apart from a clause in Exodus 
xxxviii. 21 (which is lacking in one of the old Latin copies) 
and the provisions of the land laws in Leviticus xxv v the 
whole of P's data as to Levites (except of course some geneal- 
ogies) are. contained in the book of Numbers. 

What does the book of Numbers tell us of the duties of the 
tribe of Levi? It may be well to quote the first brief sum- 
mary : — 

"And do thou appoint the Levites over the dwelling of the testi- 
mony, and over all its furniture, and over all that belongeth to it: 
they shall carry the dwelling, and all its furniture, and they shall 
serve it, and round about the dwelling shall they camp. And when 
the dwelling setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down; and 
when the dwelling is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and 
the stranger that cometh nigh shall die. . . . And the Levites shall 
pitch round about the dwelling of the testimony .... and the Le- 
vites shall keep the charge of the dwelling of the testimony " (Num. 
i. 50-53). 

Thus the chief functions are to take down, set up, and trans- 
port the dwelling, and to keep its charge. 

The view of the duties of the Levites here set forth is ampli- 
fied but never altered in the subsequent chapters. Indeed, 
they furnish the best commentary on the meaning of this pass- 
age. In iii. 6-10 we hear that the Levites are to serve Aaron. 

Prolegomena, p. 167. The references are to the English trans- 
lation throughout. 



234 Pentateuchal Studies 

They are to keep his charge and the charge of all the congre- 
gation before the tent of meeting. What is meant by these 
words is not immediately obvious. In the Massoretic text 
they are explained by the phrase " to serve the service of the 
dwelling" (ver. 7), but these words are unknown to the Vul- 
gate. The next verse, however, gives more light. They are to 
keep the vessels of the tent of meeting. It appears' from xviii. 
3 that Levites approaching these vessels when in their normal 
position would suffer death. Accordingly we must infer that 
the keeping that is meant by our text is either a keeping on 
the march or else the encamping round the Tabernacle. The 
Massoretic text of iii. 8 then adds " and the charge of the 
children of Israel to serve the service of the dwelling " ; but 
again the words are missing from the Vulgate, and the read- 
ings recorded in the larger Cambridge Septuagint also sug- 
gest that the Massoretic text is heavily glossed. The ordinary 
Septuagintal reading here is not " to serve," etc., but " according 
to all the service," etc. The whole phrase is, however, omitted 
by d. Apparently, therefore, the Levites are to act as keep- 
ers. What does this mean? The census of the Levites (ver. 
11 n\) gives a great deal of valuable information as to their 
functions. Taking the Massoretic text, we read: "And the 
charge of the children of Gershon in the tent of meeting shall 
be the dwelling and the tent, the covering thereof," etc. (ver. 
25 f.). Now this is phraseology which if authentic lends 
itself very easily to misconception. The Hebrew here ren- 
dered " in " does not necessarily mean " in " : and if we have 
before us the original text it cannot possibly mean " in." The 
Levites were not to go into the tent at all. To make the 
meaning- plain we must refer to another passage. In chap- 
ter iv. the Massoretic text has " this is the service of the sons 
of Kohath in the tent of meeting" (ver. 4). Then follows 



Priests and Levites 235 

a description of how Aaron and his sons are to come and 
dismantle the tent when the camp sets forward, and pack 
certain articles. When they have finished, the sons of Ko- 
hath " shall come to bear, and shall not touch the sanctuary, 
lest they die : these are the burden [variant reading, " bur- 
dens "1 of the sons of Kohath in the tent of meeting " (ver. 
15). Here attention must be drawn to the peculiarity of the 
English version. The English word " in " cannot be used in 
this sense. The carriage of portions of a dismantled tent 
cannot be described in English idiom as service in that tent. 
Therefore we must be on our guard when we read that 
the Levites were to do service in the tent of meeting. They 
were to serve in connection with it, but not in it. " The 
charge of the children of Gershon in the tent of meet- 
ing " was not something that was to be done in the tent. On 
the contrary, they were to carry the specified articles. The 
charge and the service intended were a charge and service of 
porterage, and little more (see iv. 21-28). It is perhaps un- 
necessary to labor the point much further. The directions in 
chapters iii. and iv. are directions for porterage, and nothing 
else. 1 The Massoretic text may have suffered somewhat. 
The Versions certainly suggest that it contains a good many 
phrases that have been added by glossators : it is certain that 
these laws were long copied by men who had a very different 
idea of the position and duties of the Levites ; but when the 
matter is carefully looked into, it will be found at each point 
that we are concerned with directions for porterage by men 
who would be liable to death if they touched the articles named 
when the tent was standing in its normal position. From time 

1 In Numbers viii. 22 the R.V. renders "went in." The Hebrew 
need not mean more than " came." 






236 Pentateuchal Studies 

to time we meet with phrases the meaning of which is not 
clear at first sight, but when the context is examined we are 
always brought back to the fact that we have before us por- 
terage instructions and little else. This is confirmed by vii. 
5 fT. Here wagons are taken, and again we meet with the 
phrase " to serve the service of the tent of meeting." Two 
wagons were given to the Gershonites according to their ser- 
vice, and four to the Merarites according to theirs. " But 
unto the sons of Kohath he gave none : because the service of 
the sanctuary belonged unto them : they bare it upon their 
shoulders." I repeat, the only service contemplated is a ser- 
vice of porterage. 

In viii. 26 a distinction is drawn between the keeping of 
charge and the doing of service. "And he shall minister with 
his brethren in the tent of meeting to keep the charge : but he 
shall not do service." After what has been said, it is evident 
that " in the tent " cannot be taken in the sense required by 
English usage. The keeping of the charge must apparently 
be some sort of service short of actual carriage — perhaps re- 
sponsibility for the transport of the vessels, etc., but possibly 
the mere camping round the tent. 

The same tale is told by Numbers xviii. The Levites are 
to serve Aaron. They are to keep " thy charge, and the 
charge of all the tent : only they shall not come nigh unto the 
vessels of the sanctuary and unto the altar" (ver. 3). The 
following verse repeats that they are to keep the charge of the 
tent of meeting for all the service of the tent ; but Aaron and 
his sons are to keep the charge of the sanctuary and the 
charge of the altar (ver. 5). Again in verse 6 we read that 
the Levites are to do the service of the tent of meeting. Once 
more, then, it appears that the charge and the service are in- 
timately connected, and constitute the whole function of the 



Priests and Levites 237 

Levites. What the service is we know clearly : the " charge " 
appears to bear a kindred meaning. Certainly it cannot mean 
anything like cleaning the vessels that they were not even to 
approach. 

The only other passage that is material is xvi. 9 f. Here 
again the duty of the Levites is to do the service of the dwell- 
ing of the Lord : but this is followed by a phrase that is text- 
ually doubtful — "and to stand before the congregation [LXX 
"tent"] to serve them [Vulg. "him"]." The next verse 
shows that they are excluded from the priesthood of Aaron. 1 

Nowhere is there any hint of functions that could have been 
discharged by the Levites after the period of wanderings had 
ceased. 

Such are the positive data of P with regard to the functions 
of the Levites. To appreciate the significance of those data 
we must also test them by other standards. It is held that P 
stands between Ezekiel and the Chronicler. The latter es- 
pecially is supposed to represent the working of the completed 
Law. Therefore we must consider how far the views of these 
two writers correspond with the contents of P. Ezekiel states 
in a passage that will have to be considered more fully here- 
after (xliv. 9-14) that the Levites are to perform certain 
duties. The state of the text makes it impossible to be quite 
certain what exactly the first of these duties is, but apparently 
they are to be something in the nature of gate-keepers. Then 

1 A small discrepancy in the Massoretic text should be noticed. 
According to Numbers iv. the age of service was from thirty to fifty 
years old, but in Numbers viii. twenty-five years is given as the 
commencing age. The LXX does not confirm the Massoretic text in 
Numbers iv., but may have undergone alteration. I think, how- 
ever, that it would be unwise to place much reliance on the num- 
ber 25 occurring in only one passage. It might easily be due to 
later scribes, who certainly understood these laws in a sense quite 
different from that originally intended. 



238 Pentateuchal Studies 

he continues : "They shall slay the burnt-offering and the sac- 
rifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to min- 
ister to them." Now this is precisely what they are not to do 
in P. It is clear from the opening chapters of Leviticus that 
the statutory individual sacrifices were to be slain by the sac- 
rificants themselves, not by the Levites. There can therefore 
be no question of any such action being in accordance with 
the Law. Then the prophet continues : " and I will make 
them keepers of the charge of the house, for all its service," 
etc. (ver. 14). The resemblance to the language of P is not 
more obvious than the difference in the sense. There is here 
a pouring of new wine into old bottles. The service contem- 
plated could not possibly be the carrying about of sections of 
the walls. The " charge " is not explained by this verse, but 
the prophet's meaning appears pretty clearly from verses 7 f. 
We learn that in the temple foreigners had been brought in "to 
be in my sanctuary, to profane it, when ye brought near my 

bread, fat and blood and ye set them to keep my charge 

in my sanctuary." That at least seems to represent the mean- 
ing of the original text — though it differs slightly from the 
Massoretic readings. In that case, therefore, foreigners had 
been admitted to places into which (if P refers to the temple, 
as the critics allege) no Levite could have been allowed to 
penetrate on pain of death. 

The Chronicler's testimony is to the same effect. He rep- 
resents the Levites as performing a number of duties, but he 
expressly attributes some of these to post-Mosaic ordinances. 
In other cases, however, he tells us that the Levites had to 
perform duties which either find no mention in P or else are 
assigned to the priests. For example, the preparation and 
placing of the shewbread falls to the Levites in 1 Chronicles 
ix. 32 ; xxiii. 29 ; 2 Chronicles xiii. 11 ; but not in Leviticus 



Priests and Levites 239 

xxiv. 5-8, and the same may be said of " the fine flour for a 
meal-offering, whether of unleavened wafers, or of that which 
is baked in the pan, or of that which is soaked, and for all 
manner of measure and size" (1 Chron. xxiii. 29). It cannot 
be that in the intent of P such duties were to be discharged 
by the Levites, for a momentary glance at the sanctuary would 
have meant death (Num. iv. 20). When we read that the 
Levites were " for the service of the house of the Lord, over 
the courts, and over the chambers, and over the cleansing of 
every holy thing" (1 Chron. xxiii. 28), we remember not 
merely that such duties nowhere appear in P, but that that 
document knows nothing of any chambers, would not have 
allowed the Levites to touch many of the holy things, and re- 
garded service simply as porterage. Again, 1 Chronicles xxiii. 
30 reads : " and to stand every morning to thank and praise 
the Lord, and likewise at even." This is quite unknown to P, 
and indeed the Chronicler himself elsewhere regards the mu- 
sical service as instituted by David, not Moses. Once more, 
1 Chronicles xxiii. 31 assigns to the Levites the task of offer- 
ing burnt-offerings on certain occasions : but P expressly for- 
bids their approaching the altar (Num. xviii. 3) on pain of 
death to both Levites and priests ! It is unnecessary to exam- 
ine the statements of Chronicles in further detail. They may 
sometimes represent a later interpretation of P : they certainly 
do not represent the plain meaning of his ordinances. Well- 
hausen nowhere shows his incompetence to deal with such top- 
ics as the present more clearly than when he writes " that in 
the temple of Solomon even heathen (Zech. xiv. 21), probably 
captives, were employed to do hierodulic services which, ac- 
cording to the law, ought to have been rendered by Levites, 
and which afterwards actually were so rendered" (p. 123). 
According to the law the performance of some of these " hier- 



240 Pentateuchal Studies 

odulic services " by the Levites would have been visited by 
death, while their performance of others is not even contem- 
plated. Hereafter we shall consider the reason that brought 
about the change. For the moment we are merely concerned 
with ascertaining the data of P and their true meaning. 

Curiously enough, the critics end by recognizing something 
of all this, but without seeing its bearing on their case. Thus 
Kuenen writes: "Moreover we must not lose sight of the 
fact that P puts forward his ordinances about Priests and 
Levites in the form of a description of the Mosaic period and 
the organization of the cultus at that time. His Levites con- 
sequently are fully occupied with the taking down and erec- 
tion of the Tent of Meeting and with the transport of all the 
holy vessels, and we are not surprised that we learn little or 
nothing of what they will have to do at a permanent sanctu- 
ary." 1 I venture to think that most people will be sur- 
prised. P's whole object being to introduce a particular 
organization of worship, it is odd that he should have said 
nothing at all about it (as we must suppose on Kuenen's 
theory): and it is still more odd — though Kuenen did not 
detect these facts — that he should have appointed death as 
the penalty — or should we say reward ? — of doing the acts 
that he desired these persons to perform. 

Thus, when the position of the Levites in P is fairly con- 
sidered, certain points stand out at once that are extraordi- 
narily unfavorable to the Wellhausen case. 

First, the hypothesis that in P we have a projection of later 
conditions into the desert period breaks down under the weight 
of P's data. 2 The writer conceives the Levites primarily as a 

1 Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 478. 

2 Thus Wellhausen writes : " The former [i.e. the sons of Aaron] 
are priests of the tabernacle, the latter of the temple; but as in 
point of fact the only distinction to be drawn between the Mosaic 



Priests and Levites 241 

body of sacred porters. Nov/ nobody living in any subsequent 
age could suppose that there was either occasion or possibility 
to carry about the temple. If we are really to adopt the projec- 
tion theory according to which the duties of the Levites in P 
mirror their duties in the second Temple, we must imagine a 
priestly gentleman picturing to himself sections of the tem- 
ple walls and bits of the roof as being carried about at odd 
times by Levites on their shoulders. In fact, on this view he 
must have conceived the temple as a sort of a toy house such 
as children play with, an erection that could be set up and 
taken down at will. The absurdity of these propositions must 
surety be obvious to everybody. 

Secondly, the net result of such a scheme would be to 
create a body of Levites for use during the period of wander- 
ings and never thereafter. As soon as the desert age was 
over, the whole tribe would find their main occupation gone. 
How can we conceive that any legislator deliberately sat down 
and invented such a scheme centuries after the epoch to which 
it relates, well knowing that in so far as his scheme purported 
to be a narrative of events it was fictitious from beginning to 
end, and in so far as it might be regarded as a legislation ap- 
plicable to his own or any future day there was not a line in it 
that could conceivably be put into practice? If any theorist 
can be conceived as acting in this way, how are we to sup- 
pose that his work would meet with acceptance ? Yet that and 
nothing less is what the theory demands. 

Thirdly, P neither embodies the views of Ezekiel nor finds 
an accurate reflection in Chronicles. The views of P are quite 
different from those of the other two books. The facts are 

and the actual central sanctuary is that between shadow and sub- 
stance, so neither can any other be made between the Mosaic and 
the actual central priesthood" (p. 125). 



242 Pentateuchal Studies 

such as to enable us to say definitely that P is not in line with 
them. It is impossible to assume that he appointed the death 
penalty for certain acts if performed by Levites, because he 
really wished the Levites to perform those acts. It is certainly 
true that in the Pentateuch phrases like " keeping charge " are 
used which in the absence of any context might very easily 
be held to refer to such duties as we find assigned to the 
Levites in Ezekiel and in Chronicles. But the author of the 
Pentateuch must be judged on his own statements, not on the 
understanding of any other writer or of later transcribers of 
his work, and when we look into these statements and try to 
make the various functions suggested fit into the phraseology 
we always discover some Pentateuchal precept that negatives 
the conclusion we might otherwise draw. The truth is that 
this phraseology has a history. In the Pentateuch it is used 
of desert services and nothing else: in the later books it is 
applied to permanent services as a technical term and the 
Pentateuchal legislation is thus read in the light of later cir- 
cumstances. In a historical inquiry that method cannot be fol- 
lowed. We are bound to go behind the expressions used to 
the writer's original meaning. 

Thus, in whatever light the matter be viewed, the theory 
breaks down hopelessly, and we see that we are face to face 
with two alternatives, and no more. Either the passages re- 
lating to the Levites are Mosaic or else they are moonshine. 
Tertium non datur. Neither the period of Joshua and the 
Judges, nor the Exile, nor any other conceivable date, can 
possibly be made to fit. 1 

^Similarly Baudissin is finally driven to the following admission: 
"The Priestly Writing will in the first instance have circulated 
only in priestly circles and did not become binding law for the peo- 
ple before the Exile. In the full sense it never became so and could 
not oecome so; for under the forms of the Mosaic period this 



Priests and Levites 243 

To this result our investigation enables us to append cer- 
tain corollaries. We have found that P presents us with dis- 
positions relating to a whole tribe for the desert period and 
making no provision for their future after the Conquest. His 
regulations are purely transitory. Therefore we must con- 
clude that some other dispositions differing from these and 
capable of being applied when the Israelites were settled in 
Canaan were also given by Moses: for he certainly cannot 
have supposed that the practice of the wilderness could have 
continued for all time. Consequently we must expect to find 
elsewhere supplementary regulations contemplating entirely 
different circumstances and proceeding on other lines : and the 
differences will not necessarily be an argument against the 
Mosaic authenticity of both sets of regulations. 

Secondly, we are entitled to expect that P's regulations as 
to the Levites will provide us with confirmation of a view to 
which former investigations have already led us, viz. that the 
numbers of the Pentateuch are largely corrupt. If these reg- 
ulations are Mosaic they will be true to the circumstances of 
the Mosaic age, and those circumstances rule out the number 
22,000. We do in fact find what we expect in Numbers iv. 
The Levites are so few that Aaron and his two sons can per- 
sonally control them all and appoint them to their individual 
tasks: "Aaron and his sons shall go in, and appoint them 
every one to his service and to his burden " (ver. 19) ; " and 
by name ye shall appoint the instruments of the charge of 
their burden" (ver. 32). Six wagons drawn by twelve oxen 
were sufficient for the transport of everything that could not be 

writing in many cases pictures conditions as they existed at no time 
after the settlement in Canaan" (my italics). (Geschichte des alt- 
testamentlichen Priesterthums, p. 280 ; compare tne same writer's 
article " Priests and Levites " in Hastings's larger Dictionary of 
the Bible.) 



244 Pentateuchal Studies 

carried on men's shoulders (chap. vii.). Facts such as these 
abundantly confirm our previous observations. Nor should 
we be misled by the narratives that speak of " princes " of 
various sections of the Levites. The meaning would in some 
respects be more aptly given by the rendering " foremen." 
Before passing away from the Levites we must note a point 
in P's representation to which we shall have to return here- 
after. For the purposes of their service the Levites undergo 
a special ritual (Num. viii.), but it is not a ritual of consecra- 
tion. It is only a ritual of purification. 

In addition to the Levites we find in P Aaron the priest (at 
a later date Eleazar the priest) and the sons of Aaron the 
priests, but it is noteworthy that this reading does not appear 
to be recognized by all the authorities in any place. Owing to 
the system of abbreviations which obtained at the time the 
LXX was made and has been continued even in some Hebrew 
MSS. that are still extant, it was possible to read the same 
Hebrew phrase either as " the sons of Aaron the priest " or 
" the sons of Aaron the priests." In Leviticus i. the Massoretic 
text adopts the singular in verse 7 and the plural in verse 8, 
but where the Massoretic text has the plural the other authori- 
ties always attest one or more variants. Sometimes we find the 
singular, sometimes one of the phrases is omitted, sometimes 
a displacement in the order suggests the presence of a gloss. 
Usually it is the Old Latin that has the singular, either with 
or without the support of other authorities. A typical in- 
stance occurs in Leviticus i. 11. There the Massoretic text 
has the plural, the Septuagintal MS. m and the Vulgate omit 
the word altogether, while the Old Latin and a Bohairic copy 
read the singular. It is unnecessary to go through all the 
cases, but it is proper to say that in Leviticus xiii. 2, where 



Priests and Lcvites 245 

the Massoretic text gives us " to Aaron the priest or to one of 
his sons the priests," the Vulgate omits " the priests." 

Thus we find, first, the high priest, most usually called " the 
priest/' but sometimes designated by other expressions; and, 
secondly, " the sons of Aaron " or " the priests." To these 
also the expression " the priest " could be applied either to 
designate descent or in the ritual as meaning " the officiating 
priest " ; but the title here has not the same force as when ap- 
plied to the high priest, who was the priest par excellence. 
Similarly an Englishman speaking of " the Prince " means 
the Prince of Wales unless there is something in the context 
to show that he is referring to some other prince. This usage 
of the term in P becomes important when we reach the later 
history, since there too we find persons bearing the title " the 
priest " who obviously stand at the head of the hierarchy. 
The phrase "Aaron the high priest " is entirely unknown to P. 
Where the high priest's name is given, the only qualifying 
apposition possible in his usage is " the priest." x 

On a survey of the evidence as to priests certain points 

emerge which are material to the present discussion. The 

position of the priests is very different to that of the Levites. 

If we ask why the priest is so holy, the answer appears to be 

that he is made so by the combination of two qualifications — 

the Divine choice and his consecration. The Levites, it must 

1 It will be convenient at this point to explain a little discrep- 
ancy in the Massoretic text. It is said that in some passages (e.g. 
Ex. xxix. 7; Lev. xxi. 10, 12) only the high priest is anointed, 
while in others all sons of Aaron undergo this r#e. It is the case 
that the high priest alone is anointed in some passages. The trou- 
ble has arisen partly through a confusion between sprinkling and 
anointing, and partly through textual corruption. The critical 
case is set out on page 251 of the Oxford Hexateuch, vol. i. Of 
the passages that give trouble, Numbers iii. 3 was unknown to 
the recension of the LXX which Lagarde thought Lucianic, in 
Exodus xxviii. 41 the words " and thou shalt anoint them " are 



246 Pentateuchal Studies 

be remembered, were not consecrated, only purified, and in 
their case P contains no Divine command enabling them to 
perform the duties of priests. With regard to the priestly 
tasks the legislation wears a twofold aspect. On the one hand 
it is given primarily for the wilderness and bears the stamp 
of the conditions of the time.' On the other much of it was 
intended to continue after the conquest. Two features call 
for special notice — the inadequacy of the staff to the post- 
conquest conditions and the signs of date. 

If we turn to Leviticus xiii. f. we shall find laws dealing 
with leprosy. Let us test the application of these. At the 
very beginning of the earlier chapter we read that a man who 
has certain symptoms is to be brought unto Aaron the priest 
or unto one of his sons. Then follow rules for inspecting and 
isolating the patient. Remembering that on the critical the- 
ory P assumes the capital at Jerusalem as self-evident and the 
priests as concentrated there, we must ask how such provis- 
ions were to work after the conquest. During the desert 
period nothing could have been simpler; but what was to 
happen when the Israelites dwelt all over Canaan from Beer- 
sheba to Dan? Nay more, how could such regulations con- 
ceivably occur to the mind of any sane man during or after 
the exile when the bulk of the Israelites were in Babylonia 
and there were important Jewish colonies in Egypt and else- 

not in the Vulgate, nor are the material words of Exodus xl. 13, 
15. In Leviticus vii. 35 a Septuagintal MS., the Ethiopic, Armenian, 
and Vulgate omit " anointing portion " before " his sons." On the 
other hand, Exodus xxix. 21 prescribes sprinkling, which is quite 
a different rite to anointing, Leviticus viii. 30 narrates the fulfil- 
ment of the command, and Leviticus x. 7 presumably refers to 
this. There remains only Exodus xxx. 30. In view of xxix. 7 
and all the other passages, it is most probable that we have here 
some slight corruption that cannot be corrected from the LXX or 
the Vulgate. "And his sons " may easily be a gloss, and the words 
" and thou shalt sanctify them " may have come in from the pre- 
ceding verse by dittography. 



Priests and Levites 247 

i 
where? And if the theory is absurd when it is applied to 
men, what are we to say when we read of leprous garments 
(Lev. xiii. 47 ff.) ? Was a man to make the pilgrimage from 
Babylonia to Jerusalem to consult a priest about a doubtful 
garment? And what about the leper's offerings in chapter 
xiv. ? Could they conceivably have been intended for such 
circumstances? It is easy to multiply such questions. Neither 
the critics nor P can supply the answer. 

Then we come to a passage which is expressly stated to 
apply to the period after the conquest (Lev. xiv. 33-53). It 
deals with houses that are leprous. The owner is to notify 
the priest, and the latter is to come and inspect the house. In 
certain eventualities he will then shut up the house and return 
on the seventh day. Clearly this is not a duty that could have 
been discharged for the whole country immediately after the 
conquest by the descendants of Aaron. It postulates the pres- 
ence of priests either in or within reasonable distance of every 
" city." It contemplates a far larger body of priests than the 
descendants of Aaron could have been for some time after the 
conquest, and it demands purificatory rites over running wa- 
ter which are obviously designed to be practicable for those 
who might be at a distance from the religious capital. 

It is not necessary to continue this examination of the laws. 
What has been said in the case of leprosy applies {mutatis 
mutandis) to other portions of P : and the antiquity of that 
document and the incompleteness of its priestly staff become 
evident here as elsewhere. Yet there is one point that helps 
to explain much of the subsequent history of the priesthood 
— I refer to the portion of the sacrificial ritual to be per- 
formed in the case of statutory individual sacrifices by the 
sacrificant himself. Few readers of Leviticus i. consider how 
clearly it mirrors early and simple conditions. It is true that 



248 Pentateuchal Studies 

the LXX makes the priests, and not the sacrificant, kill the 
victim; but the correctness of the Massoretic text is proved 
by iii. 2, where the plural is impossible. Now turn to 1 Kings 
viii. 63, where we read of Solomon's enormous sacrifice. How 
could this ritual possibly be applied to such a case? It may 
be objected, with reason, that this sacrifice of Solomon's was 
entirely exceptional. Yet, while this may readily be granted, 
two reflections suggest themselves. With the growth of lux- 
ury the upper classes would inevitably object to slaughtering 
and flaying the cattle personally. Moreover, sacrifices would 
tend to grow in the number of victims, and the task would 
become impossible. It is one thing to slaughter and flay a 
single animal with one's own hand: it is quite another to 
slaughter and flay fifty or a hundred or five hundred. The 
ritual presupposes very simple conditions. With the growth 
of luxury modifications would inevitably have to be introduced. 

Thus in the case of the priests, as in the case of the Levites, 
we see that P taken by itself is a torso, and nothing more, 
and that it represents the earliest age in the national history. 

The portions of the Pentateuch that we have still to exam- 
ine will supply the solutions of some of its problems. 

PRIESTS AND LEVITES IN THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE 
PENTATEUCH 

The data of JE are very scanty. Perhaps the most impor- 
tant passage in the eyes of the critical school is Exodus iv. 14, 
where we read of "Aaron thy brother the Levite." It is 
gravely urged that this passage proves that the Levites were 
not a tribe, but a class of persons of priestly skill ; in fact, that 
" Levite " here denotes profession, not ancestry. The reason 
advanced is that this phrase is addressed to Moses, who was 
necessarily of the same ancestry as his own brother and would 



Priests and Levites 249 

therefore not require to be informed of his descent. It is 
sought to buttress this argument by a reference to Judges 
xvii. 7, where we read : "And there was a youth from Bethle- 
hem- judah, of the tribe of Judah, and he was a Levite, and he 
sojourned there." This youth, it is said, came of the tribe of 
Judah, and therefore when we are told that he was a Levite 
we must understand this of his profession. In point of fact, 
this youth " of the tribe of Judah " was a grandson of Moses, 
being the son of Gershom (xviii. 30). When we read in the 
last-cited verse " son of Gershom, son of Manasseh," in the 
English Versions, we must not be misled. The Hebrew has 
" son of M sh h " (Moses). The letter " n " was then inserted 
by the scribes in a suspended position to make the name 
"M n sh h" (Manasseh) out of reverence for the lawgiver's 
memory. But the true reading is " Moses," and the youth in 
question was therefore his grandson and a descendant of 
Levi. Moreover, xvii. 7 itself says as much. This Levite 
" sojourned " in Bethlehem. This word " sojourned " is the 
technical word for members of the tribe of Levi, who had no 
tribal lot like the secular tribes. How, then, comes it that this 
youth who was a Levite is described as being of the tribe of Ju- 
dah ? The explanation is very simple. As is well known, there 
were two Greek translations of the book of Judges both of which 
are quoted as Septuagint. Now in Field's Hexapla ad loc. we 
find two renderings of the passage which in . the Massoretic 
text runs " from Bethlehem-judah, of the tribe of Judah." 
According to the one, the text should be " from Bethlehem 
the city of Judah " ; according to the other, supported by The- 
odotion, it should be " from the city of Bethlehem-judah." 
Neither of these two confirms the Massoretic text, and neither 
contains a hint that Jonathan was anything but a Levite by 
descent. The difficulty in this case arises from slight textual 



250 Pentatcuchal Studies 

corruption, and no support can be derived from this passage 
for the theory of professional Levites. 

If, now, we return to Exodus iv. 14, we shall see that the 
hypothesis is equally untenable there. The origin of the 
phrase, leaps to the eyes. The full designation of an Israelite 
in the Mosaic age was "A, son of B, of the tribe of X," or 
else "A, son of B, the X-ite." Aaron would normally have 
been described as "Aaron, son of Amram, the Levite." In a 
speech made to Moses, however, the relationship to the lat- 
ter is naturally substituted for " son of Amram " ; and thus we 
get " Aaron, thy brother, the Levite." The designation is no 
more remarkable than " your brother J. S." would be in a 
speech made in our own day to " T. S." It is true that in 
such a case " your brother J." would be the more usual desig- 
nation; but everybody knows, from personal experience, that 
there are occasions on which the former style is adopted. To 
assign any other meaning to the phrase is to land ourselves 
in a morass of absurdities. We know that before the age of 
Moses the Levites were a secular tribe, who, according to the 
blessing of Jacob, were not in particularly good repute. Im- 
mediately after the age of Moses 3 we find that the members 
of the tribe of Levi enjoy a sacred character, and in the bless- 
ing of Moses, which is supposed to be an early poem, Levi, the 
priestly body, is a tribe. To postulate by the side of the only 
Levites we know, the tribal Levites, an otherwise unknown 
professional class termed "Levites"; to suppose that the 
tribe then suddenly acquired a sacred character (as shown by 
the data of J and E, yet to be examined, and by the correct 
text of this passage of Judges), and that these two sets of 

1 Jonathan is described as a young man in the book of Judges. 
His father Gershom was born before the forty years of wandering 
began. The episode of his priesthood to Micah must therefore 
have occurred only a few years after the lawgiver's death. 



Priests and Levites 251 

Levites are entirely distinct, is to suppose a most amazing set 
of absurdities. Our sources tell us of but one kind of Le- 
vites — the members of the tribe of Levi — and there is not 
a 1 scintilla of evidence for any other. 1 

Apart from the blessing of Moses (to be considered here- 
after), the Pentateuchal passages regarded by the critics as 
early supply us with only one reference to the special charac- 
ter of Levi — Exodus xxxii. 26-29. The text is not in a sat- 
isfactory condition, but there is some question of consecration 
and a Divine blessing. The testimony of Deuteronomy and 
the difficulties of the passage suggest that the text is here in- 
complete. 

Of the priests we learn but little in JE. As has been shown 
elsewhere, " elders " should be read for " priests " in Exodus 
xix. 22, 24. 2 The theory that Joshua was a priest has also 
been demonstrated to be baseless. 3 Deuteronomy x. 6 (E) 
tells us that "Aaron died, and Eleazar his son ministered in 
the priest's office in his stead." This entirely agrees with P 
so far as it goes. It shows us that Aaron was " the priest," 
and that he was succeeded by Eleazar, as in P. Some of the 
laws imply the existence of a priesthood, but give us no infor- 
mation as to its composition. The passage in the blessing of 
Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 8-11) is really the most valuable of all 
these, but it will be clearer when we have considered the evi- 
dence of D. 

1 Reference is sometimes made to the article " the Levite " in 
such passages as Exodus vi. 19. This merely shows that the text- 
ual evidence has not been examined. Thus in this verse the LXX 
and Vulgate read " Levi," not " the Levite." In such cases the 
article is due to later copyists. For the benefit of those who are 
not Hebraists it should be said that there is no difference in the 
original between Levi and Levite. 

2 Supra, p. 230. 

3 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 66-70 = Bibliotheca Sa- 
cra, July, 1908, pp. 494-497. 



252 Pentateuchal Studies 

This last document takes up all the threads that we have 
had to follow, and weaves them into a consistent and intelligi- 
ble whole; but, as already stated, it certainly suggests that 
something has fallen out from Exodus. 

In order fully to appreciate the data of Deuteronomy, we 
must briefly recall the difficulties with which P presented us. 
First, we found a whole tribe of Levites, chosen by God but 
not consecrated, whose occupation would come to an end with 
the conquest, with the result that as soon as the ark and tent 
were located permanently at any one spot they would have no 
duties to perform. Then we saw a small body of consecrated 
priests who could not possibly discharge the functions that 
would devolve upon them with the conquest, and we discov- 
ered laws which could be administered only by a numerous 
priesthood settled all over the country. Deuteronomy also 
knows such laws. It too has a rite to be performed locally 
with priestly assistance by running water (xxi. 1-9). It too 
contemplates leprosy laws administered by priests (xxiv. 8). 
But in both cases it speaks of " the priests, the Levites." 

When it is carefully examined three points emerge: (1) the 
original text of Deuteronomy contained provisions enlarging 
the rights and duties of the Levites; (2) Deuteronomy prob- 
ably testifies to a lacuna in the text of the earlier books ; ( 3 ) 
the general situation postulated is the same as that which 
would have been brought about by P, but there are certain ap- 
parent discrepancies which require further notice. 

Perhaps the most important passage is Deuteronomy xviii. 
6-8. There are various small textual differences which are 
unimportant from our present point of view ; but there is one 
which changes the whole meaning of the passage. In verse 
7 a, d, and m omit " the Levites," and it seems obvious that 
the word is in fact a gloss inserted as an explanation by 



Priests and Levites 253 

somebody who took the late view of the meaning of the Law, 
and therefore found the text difficult to understand. Its 
omission transforms the historical import of the passage, 
which now runs :— 

"And if a Levite com© from any of thy gates out of all Israel, 
where he sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul unto 
the place which the Lord shall choose; then he shall minister in 
the name of the Lord his God, like all his brethren which stand 
there before the Lord. They shall have like portions to eat, be- 
jside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony." 
That is to say, a Levite fulfilling the necessary conditions 
could minister like all his brethren, i.e. the sons of Aaron — 
not, as the glossator thought, in an inferior ministry. 

To this must be added Deuteronomy xxi. 5 : " and accord- 
ing to their word shall be every contention and every blow " ; 
and the passage in the blessing " They shall teach thy judg- 
ments to Jacob and thy law to Israel: they shall put incense 
in thy nostrils and whole burnt-offerings on thine altar " 
(xxxiii. 10). When this is read in the light of Deuteronomy 
xxi. 5 and xxiv. 8 (assigning to " the priests the Levites " the 
duty of teaching the leprosy regulations), and taken in com- 
bination with the fact that the teachings of P require for their 
administration a numerous and scattered priestly caste, it 
cannot be doubted that Deuteronomy in all these matters sup- 
plements the earlier books. The joint effect of all these pass- 
ages is to confer on the Levites the power of exercising most 
of the duties of the sons of Aaron. It is, however, probable 
that in the Mosaic age one thing would be understood as self- 
evident which is not expressed. Priests, so far as we know, 
were always consecrated. In Judges we read of Micah's 
" filling the hand " first of his son and then of the Levite. 
Presumably a Levite coming under this law would have to 
undergo consecration as a matter of course before approach- 
ing the altar. 



254 Pcntatcuchal Studies 

This view of the meaning of the Law is, as we shall see 
hereafter, confirmed by all the data of the earlier and later 
prophets. But for the hagiography, the glossators, and late 
Jewish tradition no other view could ever have obtained. It 
however leaves one seeming discrepancy, which must be con- 
sidered further. There is certainly no difficulty in under- 
standing that, in view of the altered circumstances, Deuter- 
onomy should have modified the earlier provisions as to the 
Levites which had been given for the period of wandering; 
but trouble is made by the language of Numbers xvii. 5 (E.V. 
xvi. 40) : "a memorial to the children of Israel that there 
shall not come near a stranger who is not of the seed of Aaron 
to burn incense before the Lord : and that he be not like Korah 
and like his company, as the Lord spoke to him by the hand of 
Moses." It seems as if the burning of incense alone were not a 
priestly but a high priestly prerogative. In Exodus xxx. 1-9 
it is Aaron who is to burn it (cp. Lev. x. ; xvi. 12 f. ; Num. 
xvii. 11 f. (xvi. 46). Sometimes incense is used with a meal- 
offering, but that is different from the burning of incense by 
itself. In every case in P — except where persons are con- 
sumed for some unlawful use of incense — it appears that the 
burning is to be done by the high priest only, and then — as 
it would seem — as a measure of precaution against the possi- 
ble results of a theophany. Indeed it seems to have prophy- 
lactic powers. The story of Korah is in agreement with this, 
for the " priesthood " that he sought was obviously the leader- 
ship of the congregation, not such a position as that occupied 
by Aaron's sons. This appears clearly from Numbers xvi. 3. 
In view of the language of this verse, it is not too much to 
say that when Korah challenged the supremacy of Aaron and 
Moses, the test of taking censers and burning incense before 
the Lord was probably suggested by the fact that this was a 



Priests and Levites 255 

high-priestly prerogative which could not be exercised by any 
lesser dignitary. Hence Numbers xvii. 5 cannot be quoted as 
conflicting with Deuteronomy, seeing that the latter book 
clearly recognizes " the priest " as holding an exceptional 
position. Deuteronomy xviii. 1-8 certainly does not place 
any Levite in the position of the high priest. 

Before proceeding to consider more particularly the resem- 
blances between P and D, it may be well to emphasize at once 
a characteristic of Hebrew thought and methods of expression 
that bears very closely on our subject. The Semites used 
terms of fatherhood and sonship to express all kinds of rela- 
tions that would be differently expressed by a modern West- 
ern. For instance, " he was the father of such as dwell in 
tents" (Gen. iv. 20) would not be understood by any reader 
as meaning that he was in a physical sense the ancestor of all 
tent-dwellers. In the case of the Rechabites the founder is 
the " father," the members of the sect are his " sons." For 
this reason a Hebrew would have felt no difficulty in applying 
to Levites who came under the provisions of Deuteronomy 
xviii. 6-8 legislation that was expressed to be intended for the 
" sons " of Aaron. The fact that in the first instance it was 
so intended for those who were in fact descended from Aaron 
would not cause him any qualms. Hebrew usage is too elas- 
tic, and the trouble that a Western mind may feel on this sub- 
ject would have been unintelligible to the tribesmen of Moses. 

Once the points we have striven to make are clearly grasped, 
the resemblance between Deuteronomy and P becomes very 
marked. " The priest that standeth to minister unto the 
Lord thy God," in Deuteronomy xvii. 12, is no other than the 
successor of Aaron. The Levites are as in P — but in Deu- 
teronomy fresh provision is made for them in view of the ap- 
proaching conquest. In both they have no tribal inheritance, 



256 Pentateuchal Studies 

yet Deuteronomy xviii. 8 speaks of his " patrimony." Two 
explanations have been suggested by those who wish if possi- 
ble to avoid the natural inference that this is an allusion to the 
Levitical cities. It is said that the phrase may refer to some 
sacrificial dues. This overlooks the fact that the centralizing 
ordinances of Deuteronomy leave no room for any local 
priestly sacrifices, and also the obvious impossibility of a 
priest's selling aught that had come to him as a sacred due. 
It is also said that this may refer to real property. Undoubt- 
edly it does; but then, if Deuteronomy recognizes real prop- 
erty in spite of the non-possession of a tribal lot, the argument 
against its recognition of the Levitical cities is gone. They 
were cities that could be owned by members of a tribe that had 
no inheritance like its peers. 

The resemblance between P's local rites for leprosy in a 
house and D's local rites in the case of a man found slain has 
already been indicated, and it has been shown that the ulti- 
mate recognition of an extensive and scattered priesthood is 
necessitated by the laws of P. Both documents recognize 
leprosy laws locally administered by a priesthood, the Levit- 
ical carrying of the Ark, and the separation of Levi for a 
sacred ministry. The seeming discrepancy between the pas- 
sage in Numbers that threatens death if the Levites approach 
the altar and the new provisions of Deuteronomy xviii. is nat- 
urally explained partly by the new enactment itself, but partly 
also by the probability that Levites performing priestly func- 
tions at the religious capital would first undergo consecration. 

There remains one point of difference between Deuteron- 
omy and P. The former recognizes a Levitical right of bless- 
ing which the latter assigns to Aaron and his sons. The 
passage relating to the priestly blessing is at present mis- 
placed. Numbers vi. 22-27 contains the command to bless, 



Priests and Levites 257 

but in point of fact we find Aaron blessing the people at his 
consecration (Lev. ix. 22). As the later chapter relates the 
fulfilment of commands given on Mount Sinai, it would seem 
that Numbers vi. 22-27 must have been given at the same 
time — before the separation of Levi. What has already been 
said about the characteristics of Hebrew modes of expression 
would apply here too. The difficulty therefore vanishes. On 
the other hand it may be open to question whether there is not 
a lacuna in the text of Exodus or Numbers, giving some fur- 
ther account of the duties and privileges of the Levites ; but 
this must remain doubtful. It may be that the general words 
in Numbers as to the duties of the Levites cover everything 
that is necessary. In Deuteronomy xxvii. 9, etc., we find 
Moses and the priests the Levites speaking to all Israel. Pre- 
sumably they repeated what he said. If so, they may have 
repeated the blessing' on occasions when Aaron blessed the 
people. But on points like this no certainty is possible. And 
assuredly when the discrepancies between Deuteronomy and 
the earlier books resolve themselves into small and doubtful 
minutise of this kind, Mosaic authenticity is not in danger. 1 

PRIESTS AND LEVITES FROM MOSES TO MALACHI 

The data of the book of Joshua add nothing fresh to our 
information. This book, like all the other prophetical books, 
entirely agrees with the interpretation of the Pentateuchal 
laws that has just been given. Phrases like " the priests the 
bearers of the ark of the covenant " alternate with such ex- 
pressions as " the priests, the Levites, bearers of the ark of 
the covenant of the Lord/' In many places the text is in an 

1 It is very noteworthy that in 2 Chronicles xxx. 27 we read : 
"And the priests, the Levites [several MSS. and versions "and the 
Levites "] arose and blessed the people." The Levites are here 
conceived as uttering the priestly blessing. 



258 Pentateuchal Studies 

uncertain condition, but there is no sign that the original MS. 
in any way conflicted with the view taken of the Pentateuchal 
laws. One phrase deserves especial notice, for its complete 
confirmation of what has been said. In xviii. 7 we read : " for 
the Levites have no portion in your midst ; for the priesthood 
of the Lord is his inheritance." Dr. Carpenter is much puz- 
zled and assigns the verse to a priestly redactor of all con- 
ceivable figments ! How on his principles could a priestly 
writer ascribe the priesthood to the Levites ? 

The only other point of interest is the fact that in their 
division of Joshua into sources the critics are compelled to 
represent J and E and P and a Deuteronomic writer as all 
entertaining precisely the same conception — though on crit- 
ical principles they ought to be at hopeless variance — and 
curiously enough this conception is precisely the conception I 
have derived from the Pentateuch. For example, in iii. 8, P s 
speaks of " the priests that bear the ark " — not, be it ob- 
served, the Levites. J does the same in verses 13 and 17, E 
in verse 14, and a Deuteronomic redactor in iv. 9 and other 
verses. After all, it seems simpler to suppose that the Penta- 
teuch means what it says and was so understood until after 
the exile, than to indulge in such speculations as these. 

The story of Jonathan the grandson of Moses is the only 
important contribution of the book of Judges to our present 
topic. " Now I know that the Lord will bless me, since I have 
a Levite as priest" (xvii. 13), clearly testifies to the sacred 
character of the tribe soon after the death of Moses. The 
textual question on this narrative has already been discussed: 
it remains only to notice that the position of the Levites as 
well as their character corresponds with the data of the Penta- 
teuch. The idolatry and the separate shrine are regarded as 
breaches of the Law, — as of course they were. " In those 



Priests and Lcvites 251) 

days there was no king in Israel, every man did that which 
was right in his own eyes." This significant comment was 
perhaps meant to be enforced by the narrative of the theft of 
Micah's image — an event that would hardly enhance the 
prestige of such " gods " in the minds of the readers. 

The narratives of the books of Samuel and the early chap- 
ters of Kings have been much commented on by the Chron- 
icler and the critics. As the statements of the Chronicler can- 
not fairly be reconciled with the older sources for this period, 
it will be well to leave them out of account. 

The difficulties that have been found in the history of the 
age of Samuel are diverse in nature and due to a variety of 
causes. Some of them need not; detain us long. It is claimed 
that sacrifice is offered without the intervention of a priest. 1 
This is explained by the distinction between customary lay 
offerings and statutory individual offerings — a distinction 
that, as I have shown elsewhere, 2 accounts for many features 
that give difficulty. Another point that need not detain us 
long is the blessing of the people by the kings (e.g. 2 Sam. 
vi. 18). The critics choose to claim that they used the priestly 
benediction. There is not the least evidence of this. Indeed 
in this passage we are told that David blessed the people in 
the name of the Lord of hosts. If this is to be taken in its 
most literal sense, he cannot have employed the priestly bene- 
diction, for the expression " Lord of hosts " does not occur in 

1 See, e.g., Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 128 ; " Sacrifice is in two 
instances offered, by Gideon and Manoah; but in neither case is a 
priest held to be necessary. . . . Until the cultus has become in some 
measure centralised the priests have no locus standi; for when 
each man sacrifices for himself and his household, upon an altar 
which he improvises as best he can for the passing need, where is 
the occasion for people whose professional and essential function 
is that of sacrificing for others?" 

2 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, chapter vi. = Bibliotheca Sa- 
cra, October, 1909. 



2 GO Pentatcuchal Studies 

it. But, putting this aside, can anything be more absurd than 
this theory? Blessing was a common and graceful act among 
the ancient Hebrews. We meet with many instances. Per- 
haps the most striking is Jacob's " in thee shall Israel bless," 
etc., for this passage demonstrates the prevalence of the cus- 
tom. In this very chapter we read, two verses later, that 
David returned to bless his household (vi. 20). Would any- 
body assume that he used the priestly blessing? And if it be 
admitted that there is no reason to suppose that this is the 
priestly blessing, why should we make such an assumption 
when we read of David's blessing his people? What can be 
more' natural or indeed more universal than that a king should 
bless his people? There is certainly nothing here to point to 
any usurpation of priestly functions. The same holds good 
with even more force of Solomon, since in his case we have 
the words of a blessing in 1 Kings viii. 56 fL 

More important is the argument based on three passages 
that appear to show that non-Levitical persons were priests. 
In each case the textual evidence proves that there is corrup- 
tion. The first of these is 2 Samuel viii. 18. The Massoretic 
text has " and the sons of David were D"on3, i.e. priests." It 
is curious, if this is the case, that the statement does not fol- 
low 17a, where we are told that Zadok and Abiathar were 
priests ; but that is not the only suspicious circumstance. The 
Chronicler (1 Chron. xviii. 17) paraphrases "first to the hand 
of the king," which looks as if they held some office. Now 
this is confirmed by the LXX, which here reads aularchs — 
a word we might suitably render " chamberlains." It has 
been suggested that this might be a paraphrase, but another 
passage proves that it represents a genuine Hebrew variant. 
In 1 Kings ii. some of our Septuagintal authorities have 
preserved a list of officers that is not found in the Hebrew. 



Priests and Levites 261 

It appears that at that time Benaiah son of Jehoiada was 
iirl rrji avXap^ia^ /cal eirl rod irXivOeiov, " over the aularchy 
and over the brickmaking " (LXX, 3 Kingdoms ii. 46h). It is 
not possible to claim that he was " over the priesthood and over 
the brickmaking," and it therefore appears that the Septuagintal 
aularchs does in fact represent some secular Hebrew office. 
Further, the notes on 2 Samuel viii. 18 in Field's Hexapla prove 
corruption. According to one of these, Symmachus 1 read 
erxoXd^ovTes, which means " at leisure." This makes no sense, 
but it cannot possibly be a rendering of D^rD, and proves that 
this translator knew a different text. A footnote quotes a 
scholiast as saying that Theodotion had rrjv KaTaaraaiv 
e^o^Te? rr)$ ftaaLXt/crjs oltcias, while in Chronicles he rendered 
Sopeo-TifcoL. Both these point to a Hebrew word meaning 
" chamberlains," and suggest that our present text of Chron- 
icles is a gloss to the rare earlier word which was used by the 
Chronicler as well as in Samuel. For these reasons it appears 
certain that the Hebrew is corrupt. Possibly, as Hitzig and 
Cheyne have conjectured, 2 we should read D^3D for D^ro, com- 
paring, for this use of the word,, Isaiah xxii. 15. 

The next passage is 2 Samuel xx. 26 : " and also Ira the 
Jairite was priest to David." That we are dealing in this case 
with a genuine priest is proved by the phrase " and also " at- 
taching to the mention of the priests in the preceding verse. 
The Syriac, however, instead of n^n, " the Jairite," has ^n^n, 
" the Jattirite " ; and this is confirmed by the Lucianic LXX, 
which had the same letters, and by xxiii. 38. Jattir was a 
priestly city (Josh. xxi. 14), so that this notice is not remark- 
able. ' 

1 According to another note, Symmachus read "priests," but if 
this latter note is correct, it only means that crxoAdfovres was the 
reading of some other translator. 

2 See the Expositor (5th 'Series), vol. ix. (1899) pp. 453-457. 



262 Pentateuchal Studies 

Lastly, we come to 1 Kings iv. 5. The Massoretic text tells 
us that ^7, "Zabud" (there is a variant TOf, " Zachur ") son 
of Nathan was l^n ft))-) fro, " priest, friend of the king." 
Origen did not find the word " priest " as part of the Septua- 
gintal text, and added it under an asterisk. Thus the ques- 
tion arises, whether pD is original, or has resulted from 
dittography of the preceding word l^J, Nathan. Here again 
the Septuagintal list of 1 Kings ii. throws light on the subject, 
for we learn from it that the son of Nathan was, at the time 
to which the list refers, the occupant of another secular office 
— that of counselor (LXX, 3 Kingdoms ii. 46h; cp. Lucian's 
text of ii. 34). This had been Ahitophel's title (2 Sam. xv. 
12, etc.) ; while Hushai the Archite, whose functions appear 
to have been similar, bore the official style of " king's friend " 
(see especially 1 Chron. xxvii. 33 f., apparently taken from an 
old source) . There can therefore be no doubt that there in fact 
existed a secular office of " king's friend," and that the LXX 
is right in making this the office filled by Nathan's son, either 
before or after his occupancy of the kindred secular office of 
" king's counselor." Hence no support can be derived from 
these passages for a legitimate non-Levitical priesthood. 

Then it is urged that there were dealings with the Ark that 
are not in accordance with the Law. When the curtain first 
rises on the age of Samuel we find the Ark exactly where we 
should expect it to be, viz. at Shiloh. That was where it was 
located in Joshua xviii. 1, and that was where, in the absence 
of any particular reason to the contrary, it would presumably 
remain. We find Eli and his sons in charge of it. The book 
of Samuel does not provide us with a genealogy of Eli, but 
from 1 Samuel ii. 27 we learn that he was descended from 
Aaron. This part of the narrative is therefore in order (apart 
from the question of Samuel to be considered hereafter). It 



Priests and Levites 263 

appears that the Ark did not usually go to war with the 
forces of Israel, for it was not till after a defeat that it was 
removed from Shiloh to take its part in a campaign against 
the Philistines. It was then taken to the camp under the 
charge of two sons of Eli. So far everything is in accordance 
with the Law. It is sometimes said that non-Aaronic Levites 
ought to have carried the Ark, but this will not bear investi- 
gation. As we have seen, these arrangements were made for 
the desert period. Even then there is no reason to suppose 
that priests could not bear the Ark. On the contrary, they 
were holier than Levites and were allowed to do things that 
were not permitted to the latter. Thus they had to cover up 
the Ark and make it ready for its journey before the Levites 
were allowed to come near it. Probably the only reason why 
the porterage of the Ark was assigned to Levites was the 
smallness of the number of priests available. At the time the 
arrangements w T ere made only Aaron and his two sons appear 
to have been of an age for any service, and Aaron himself was 
clearly too old to execute this duty. Moreover it appears from 
the narrative that his two sons had a large amount of other 
work to perform. Hence probably the choice of Levites ; but, 
as this is a case of the work being done by less holy persons, 
it is clear that there would be nothing to prevent descendants 
of Aaron from carrying the Ark; and of course, if the view 
taken above of the provisions of Deuteronomy be correct, the 
two classes had almost been fused into one. 

A question, however, arises on the part played by Samuel in 
these opening chapters of the first book called by his name. 
Vowed by his mother to God, he is brought to Shiloh to serve 
Eli. Wellhausen goes so far as to write : " Samuel, who is 
not a member of the family, is nevertheless adopted as a 
priest" (p. 130; cf. p. 136). The details of the narrative 



264 Pentateuchal Studies 

that are inconvenient from the Wellhausen point of view are 
ignored. In point of fact he was brought soon after he had 
been weaned. He may have been three or even as much as 
four years old at the time. 1 It would be interesting to know 
what priestly functions the boy can be supposed to have 
discharged at this mature age. Of course he grew older, but 
the little cloak annually brought by his mother (ii. 19) shows 
clearly that the whole narrative relates to his boyhood. When 
we read (ii. 18) that he ministered before the Lord, being a 
child, girded with a linen ephod, we call to mind an attractive 
picture. But that does not exempt us ' from the duty of ap- 
plying a little common sense to the narrative. It stands to 
reason that the child can have performed no priestly duties 
whatever, though doubtless he ran errands and performed 
odd jobs for Eli as a kind of page. Every reader must be 
familiar with pages and office boys, but nobody in our own 
day hearing that a boy served in the consulting-room of a 
physician would assume that he performed a doctor's services. 
The only positive information we have as to Samuel's func- 
tions is to the effect that he slept in some part of the building 
(called a temple) where the Ark was, and opened the doors in 
the morning (iii. 15). To say, as Wellhausen does, that he 
sleeps "beside the ark" (p. 131), or " in the inner portion of 
the temple beside the ark of the covenant" (p. .130), is to 
read into the narrative something that simply is not there. 
What we are told is that he slept in the temple in which the 
Ark was. Unlike the wilderness tent, this had door-valves 
which had to be opened from inside. As the structure of this 
house of the Lord was entirely different from an erection of 
planks and curtains, it seems probable that there was some 
accommodation within its precincts where the boy porter 
1 See Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 280a. 



Priests and Levites 2G5 

could sleep without penetrating to any place where he could 
not lawfully be. The later temples certainly had plenty of 
chambers for various purposes, and it is natural to infer that 
there was such a chamber or recess particularly provided for 
the porter to which the rays of " the lamp of God " could 
penetrate. Samuel may have been a Levite, as the Chronicler 
says, or again the vow made by the mother and the solemn 
surrender to God may have had the effect of consecrating him 
so that he could perform duties that could not be discharged 
by a layman ; but these scanty notices do not necessarily prove 
anything of the sort. It is more probable that the internal 
arrangements of the Temple were such as to provide for the 
presence of a priestly servant as lay porter. The opening of 
doors is not a very exalted function. 

When the Ark came back from the Philistines we read of 
various transactions that require consideration, but before 
turning to them I must bring out one point. So far as we 
know, the Ark had always been under the custody of the 
house of Aaron till the death of Hophni and Phineas. When 
David brought it up to Jerusalem it was under the charge of 
his two official priests Zadok and Abiathar, and from that 
time forward till the exile it was always under the care of 
the priests of Jerusalem. Abiathar was a descendant of Eli 
and therefore of Aaron. Hence the only period of irregu- 
larity, if there in fact was irregularity, is a period of about 
twenty years (1 Sam. vii. 2). It is important to emphasize 
this ; because, putting things at the very best for the Well- 
hausen theory, we should have to say that twenty years of 
irregularity at a time of great national difficulty could over- 
rule the consistent and unquestioned practice of all the rest 
of history, extending over some six or seven hundred years. 



266 Pentatcuchal Studies 

Whether there was irregularity, and if so, how much, is the 
question to be considered. 

In 1 Samuel vi. we read that the cart bearing the Ark came 
to the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh and stood there. Then 
comes a passage that presents difficulties. It reads " and there 
was there a great stone, and they split the wood of the cart, 
and the kine they offered as a burnt-offering to the Lord" 
(ver. 14). A pause should be made here to note the fact that 
this narrative does not explain what happened to the Ark. 
If the Ark was transferred to the stone, as we should expect, 
it seems curious that a statement to that effect does not appear 
before we are told of the breaking up of the cart, and of the 
offering of the men of Beth-shemesh. The next verse draws 
from Wellhausen the following comment: " After they [sc. 
the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh] have finished, the Levites 
come up (ver. 15) (in the pluperfect tense) and proceed as 
if nothing had happened, lift the ark from the now no longer 
existent cart, and set it upon the stone on which the sacrifice 
is already burning ; — of course only in order to fulfil the 
law, the demands of which have been completely ignored in 
the original narrative" (p. 128). That the present text is 
impossible may be conceded at once ; at the same time the 
difficulty of the preceding verse does not favor the hypothesis 
that verse 15 is a mere gloss. It is not suggested that there is 
any evidence for expelling this verse from the text. It may 
be a gloss, but it seems much more probable that the second 
half of verse 14 has accidentally suffered transposition. 

It may be that the original text of these two verses ran as 

follows : — ■ 

" 14a And the cart came into the field of Joshua the Beth- 
shemite, and stood there, and there was there a great stone ; 15a 
And the Levites took down the ark of the Lord, and the coffer that 
was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the 



Priests and Lcvites 267 

great stone, 14b and clave the wood of the cart and the kine they 
offered up for a burnt-offering unto the Lord; 15b and the men of 
Beth-shemesh offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the 
same day to the Loed." 

It will be seen that this is by far the least violent expedient 
for dealing with the text, and makes perfect sense. As Beth- 
shemesh was a Levitical city, the presence of Levites causes 
no astonishment: and we get rid of the curious narrative by 
which the cart is split up and the cattle offered without any 
notice being taken of the Ark. The Wellhausen treatment of 
this passage leaves an extraordinarily strange narrative in 
verse 14, and destroys the history that we have, in the inter- 
ests of a theory. That is the first irregularity charged in the 
history of this period. Even if Wellhausen were right as to 
the text — and it must be remembered that there is no tittle 
of evidence to that effect — the circumstances of the return 
of the Ark were so exceptional that no general inference 
could be drawn from the occurrence. 

The next episode is one on which the Wellhausen critics 
do not love to dwell. It appears that the men of Beth- 
shemesh treated the Ark irreverently, and were punished 
quite as severely as would have happened in P. The repre- 
sentation of the Ark is here exactly the same as in the Law, 
and for this reason we hear very little of it from the crit- 
ics. Then the men of Beth-shemesh sent to Kiriath-jearim. 
The men of that place came and fetched the Ark, and 
they brought it " to the house of Abinadab in the Gibeah 
[hill], and Eleazar his son they sanctified to guard the Ark 
of the Lord" (vii. 1). There it remained for twenty years, 
and we hear nothing further of it till David fetches it (in 
2 Sam. vi.). On this, two points are made: (1) that the Ark 
remained for twenty years in the house of a private individ- 
ual ; and (2) that somebody who was not a descendant of 



268 Pentateuchal Studies 

Aaron was here sanctified as its keeper. The first point is 
not of much consequence. The building of a suitable temple 
was not something that could be improvised in great haste at 
a time of political confusion. The former abode of the Ark 
had (as appears from Jer. vii. 12, 14; xxvi. 6, 9) been de- 
stroyed — presumably by the Philistines — and it is probable, 
if we discard the data of Chronicles, that the Mosaic tent or 
what remained of it had perished. The present narrative of 
1 Kings viii. 4 appears to refer to David's tent. If it does 
not, then the Mosaic Tent of Meeting still existed but, for 
some reason, was not available at Kiriath-jearim. 

The seat of the Ark appears, however, to have had con- 
siderable importance even in these twenty years. Our pres- 
ent Hebrew text presents us with at least three place-names 
that are almost identical : V^s, Geba, ny2J» Gibeah, VV^> Gibeon. 
In addition to this, the word ny21, Gibeah, means " hill," and 
we get the Gibeah of Kiriath-jearim. Further we find ex- 
pressions like " Gibeah of God," " Gibeah of Saul," etc. It 
is obvious that textual errors would necessarily arise in deal- 
ing with words so much alike, and differences between the 
Massoretic text and the Versions show us that this was in 
fact the case. The matter is further complicated by the close 
geographical proximity of all these places: Kiriath-jearim 
was one of the cities of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17) ; it fol- 
lows that its Gibeah must have been near Gibeon. According 
to the Massoretic text of Isaiah x. 29, Geba and Gibeah of 
Saul were near each other, but the names are textually doubt- 
ful. Geba (Josh, xviii. 24), Gibeon (ver. 25), and the Gibeah 
of Kiriath-jearim (ver. 28) were, according to the Masso- 
retic text, all in the territory of Benjamin. Gibeon and Geba 



Priests and Lcvites 269 

were both priestly cities (xxi. 17). Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon 
were all near Ramah. 1 

When the facts are examined, one point emerges from the 
tangle with considerable clearness. It is plain that the Gibeah 
of God in 1 Samuel x. 5 must be the same place as that which 
is called Geba in the Massoretic text of xiii. 3, where the LXX 
and Targum have Gibeah. There cannot have been two 
places of almost the same name in Benjamin, both containing a 
3*W (rendered by the R.V. "garrison") of Philistines. The 
importance of this identification is considerable. The hill or 
Gibeah of God can hardly have been anything but the Gibeah 
of Kiriath-jearim in Benjamin, where was the Ark of God. 
Other identifications may be correct : but this one alone proves 
that in the view of the Philistines considerable importance 
attached to the seat of the Ark. We learn too from 1 Sam- 
uel x. that there was a high place there. Obviously, even 
during these twenty years, the place where the Ark was, con- 
tinued to preserve no small measure of religious and political 
consequence. 

The second point is more serious — ■ if any point based on 
such fragmentary information can be deemed to be serious. 
Who Abinadab was we do not know, except that he lived on 
the Gibeah or hill of Kiriath-jearim. Dr. H. A. Poels, a pupil 
of Professor Van Hoonacker's, has devoted a good deal of 
work to the subject, and published two monographs on the 
seat of the Ark in these narratives. Many of his conclusions 
appear to me untenable, yet in dealing with these questions I 
have profited by his labors. A very ingenious conjecture of 
his should be mentioned here, as it may convey to some 
minds the conviction that it has failed to bring to me. He 
thinks — and Professor Van Hoonacker supports him with 
1 Poels, Le Sanctuaire de Kirjath-jearim, p. 41. 



270 Pentateuchal Studies 

the weight of his authority — that for U3 1TJ&K nw, " and Elea- 
zar his son," we should read "ityta m nsi, " and the sons of 
Eleazar." The change is very slight indeed and may be cor- 
rect. If it be, there is an end of the critical case on this point. 
It is, however, a mere conjecture, and personally I see no suf- 
ficient reason for altering the present text. It is quite true 
that this Eleazar is not mentioned as one of the sons of Abi- 
nadab when the Ark leaves the Gibeah : but he may have died 
in the intervening twenty years. In any case the data are too 
scanty for any certain inference. 

For, after all, what does the whole difficulty amount to? 
Eleazar, son of Abinadab, is consecrated to guard the Ark. 
Who Abinadab was we do not know. Dr. Poels connects 
him with the family of Saul, but on insufficient evidence. He 
may have been of priestly descent. Nor again do we know 
how or where Eleazar guarded the Ark. The functions he 
discharged may have been such as could be performed by a 
person of lay descent. The theory that he slept in the same 
chamber with it is unsupported by evidence and is intrinsically 
improbable. To attempt to come to any certain conclusion 
on this half verse of Samuel is to seek to make bricks without 
straw. 

With this half verse our difficulties end. The narrative of 
the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem is far simpler. First, 
an attempt is made to carry the Ark on a new cart. Probably 
the method of conveyance was suggested in part at least by the 
fact that it was in this way that the Ark had returned from 
the Philistines. Uzzah accidentally touches it, and the result 
that we should have expected from our P follows. This epi- 
sode, reinforcing the narrative of the great slaughter in the 
field of Beth-shemesh. again leads me to think that the guard- 
ianship of the Ark by Eleazar cannot have consisted in any 



Priests and Levites 271 

very intimate association with it. The occurrence inspired 
David with a natural fear, and the Ark was promptly deposited 
in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. Much has been made 
of this, but without reason. 1 After the episodes we have 
noticed, we may infer with perfect certainty that Obed-edom 
and all his family took very good care not to approach the 
chamber where the Ark was. It is then transported to Jeru- 
salem, but the method of carriage is changed. " When the 
bearers of the ark of the Lord had gone six paces " is the 
phrase employed (2 Sam. vi. 13). Here we have a reversion 
to the practice of carrying the Ark. Why ? Surely because 
it was known that this was the old practice, and events had 
shown that the new method was not safe. We are not told in 
Samuel who bore the Ark, but we are entitled to assume that 
this task was discharged by duly qualified persons. Thus the 
only real question on the whole narrative is as to the identity 
of Eleazar who — if the text be sound — discharged functions 
which in the wilderness period would probably have been per- 
formed by priests or Levites. Our materials do not enable us 
to say definitely whether his action was lawful. 

There is one important point made by the critics on the his- 
tory of this period which appears to me to be in the main 
sound. The facts about the descent of Zadok set forth in the 
second division of the Hebrew canon do not agree with the 
statements of the Hagiography, and there can be no doubt 
which is entitled to the preference. We have seen that in 
Deuteronomy Moses enacted that Levites going to the central 
sanctuary were to have a position similar to that of the de- 
scendants of Aaron. In the post-Mosaic age we find a Leviti- 

1 Wellhausen's statement that David made Obed-edom " its 
keeper" (p. 130) is one of those little imaginative touches that 
distinguish this writer. 



272 Pentateuchal Studies 

cal priesthood. We are now to witness a further step. 

Accepting the data of the prophets and rejecting the conflicting 

data of the Hagiography, we must hold that God transferred 

the high priesthood from the line of Aaron to Zadok and his 

descendants, a family stated by Ezekiel to be Levitical. Here 

is the most material passage : — 

"And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus 
saith the Lord, I did surely reveal myself [Septuagintal text] to 
thy father's house when they were in Egypt as bondmen [so the 
LXX] to the house of Pharaoh. And I chose him out of all the 
tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up on my altar, to burn incense, 
to wear an ephod before me, and I gave to thy father's house all 
the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire. . . . Therefore 
saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I said indeed that thy house, and 
thy fathers house, should walk before me for ever: but now, saith 
the Lord, Far be it from me ; for them that honor me will I honor, 
and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the 
days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy fa- 
ther's house [or, according to another possible pronunciation of 
the same Hebrew followed by the LXX, " thy seed and the seed of 
thy father's house,"]. . . . And I will raise me up a faithful priest, 
that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my 
mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk be- 
fore mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every 
one that is left in thy house shall come to bow down to him for 
a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray 
thee, in one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread " 
(1 Sam. ii. 27-36). 

But one priestly personage had received a revelation in 
Egypt, and it was he that was subsequently chosen out of all 
the tribes of Israel to be a priest. Everything in the descrip- 
tion applies, naturally interpreted, to Aaron and his family. 
Apart from the rationalistic presuppositions, the following 
comments of Wellhausen are just: " Here it is the house of 
Eli, and of Eli's father, that is the priestly family duly chosen 
in Egypt ; contrary to hereditary title, and contrary to a 
promise of perpetual continuance, is it deposed at the higher 
claims of justice. The faithful priest who is to fill the vacant 



Priests and Levites 273 

place is Zadok. This is expressly said in 1 Kings ii. 27 ; and 
no other than he ever had ' a sure house,' and walked uninter- 
ruptedly as its head and ruler before the kings of Judah. This 
Zadok, accordingly, belongs neither to Eli's house nor to that 
of Eli's father; his priesthood does not go back as far as to 
the time of the founding of the theocracy, and is not in any 
proper sense ' legitimate ' ; rather has he obtained it by the 
infringement of what in a certain degree might be called a 
constitutional privilege, to which there were no other heirs 
besides Eli and his family. Obviously he does not figure as an 
intermediate link in the line of Aaron, but as the beginner of 
an entirely new genealogy "(p. 126). Ezekiel speaks of the 
sons of Zadok as Levites (xli. 46, etc.). It is antecedently 
probable that if a man like Micah preferred to have a Levite 
as his priest, a king of all Israel would not appoint a non- 
Levite : and, once we look at the other material passages from 
the standpoint we have now reached, we see how they all fit in. 
It is striking, now, that Jeremiah xxxiii. 18-22 speaks of the 
covenant with " the Levites, the priests " — not with the house 
of Aaron. Malachi is even more emphatic, speaking of the 
covenant with Levi (ii.)- From the beginning of Judges to 
the end of the prophetical writings we hear of Aaron only in 
1 Samuel xii. 6, 8 ; Micah vi. 4 ; i.e. in passages of historical 
retrospect ; we never hear of his sons as the priests of Jerusa- 
lem or of the covenant with his family. When the author of 
Kings charges Jeroboam with having made priests of persons 
who were not fitted for the office by descent, the complaint 
is that he " made priests from among all the people, which 
were not of the sons of Levi" (1 Kings xii. 31). Surely 
these facts all point in one direction, and in one direction only. 
The Law was understood as entitling all suitable Levites to 
perform priestly offices : and it was known and realized that 



27-1 Pentateuchal Studies 

the high priesthood itself had been transferred from the house 
of Aaron to a Levitical non-Aaronic family when Solomon 
deposed Abiathar and appointed Zadok in his stead. 

What Zadok was before we find him mentioned in David's 
reign we do not know. Possibly he had been Saul's priest in 
the later years of the latter's reign. The first king had quar- 
reled with the house of Eli; yet that he had a priest appears 
from the passage where we read that the Lord answered him 
not with Urim (1 Sam. xxviii. 6) for their use implies the 
presence of a priest. But on this point no certainty is possible. 

There is one verse in the books of Samuel which is valuable 
for our purpose because it throws light on the development 
of the hierarchy. It is the verse already cited where we read 
that Eli's descendant shall come and bow down before the 
high priest for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread and ask for 
one of the priests'' offices in order to gain a living. This 
shows us a variety of priestly posts, with emoluments attached, 
to which the high priest could appoint. Contrast this de- 
veloped organization with the simplicity of the Pentateuchal 
system, in which we find one high priest and some assistants 
without gradations of rank or payments in silver. Can any 
candid inquirer doubt which of the two representations is the 
earlier in point of time ? 

In passing to the books of Kings it may be well to say at 
once that the reference to " the priests the Levites " in 1 Kings 
viii. 4 was unknown to the LXX, and was probably not a part 
of the original text. When this is- omitted, the data of this 
period present us with a hierarchy that is obviously more 
developed than that of the Pentateuch; while, as has already 
been indicated, the Levitical descent of the priesthood is as- 
sumed as unquestionable CI Kings xii. 31). It is perhaps just 
worth noticing that in 1 Kinsrs ii. 35 the LXX has a statement 



Priests and Levites 275 

that the king made Zadok first priest instead of Abiathar. 
Whether the additional words be accepted or rejected, there 
can be no doubt that they represent the true meaning of the 
text. 

The high priest is often mentioned in the books of Kings — 
generally, like Aaron in the Pentateuch, with the simple title 
of " the priest," but sometimes with some more elaborate style. 
Thus we read of " Jehoiada the priest and the priests " (2 Kings 
xii. 8), though he is also called " the high priest " in verse 11, 
if the text be sound. "Uriah the priest" (xvi.) is another 
instance, while Hilkiah is sometimes styled " the priest " and 
sometimes " the high priest." The other references to the 
hierarchical organization are even more interesting, though 
they are tantalizingly meager. We read of a second priest 
(2 Kings xxv. 18 ; Jer. lii. 24; also 2 Kings xxiii. 4, if the read- 
ing of the Targum be sound), of certain guardians of the 
threshold — three in number — who appear to hold high rank 
in the hierarchy (2 Kings xxv. 18; Jer. lii. 24; 2 Kings xii. 
10), and of "elders of the priests" (2 Kings xix. 2; Isa. 
xxxvii. 2 ; Jer. xix. 1, if the text in the last-cited passage be 
sound). All this is a great advance on the Pentateuch, as are 
also the powers of the overseer of the house of the Lord, of 
whom we read in Jeremiah. 

If we except Ezekiel, the most interesting passage relating 
to the priesthood that has come down to us from this period 
is Jeremiah xxxiii. 18-21. Significance attaches in particular 
to the variants — due either to erroneous interpretations or to 
glossators — that have been preserved by the Vulgate: 
" Neither shall the priests [Vulg. and Syriac add " and "] the 
Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to 
burn oblations, and to do sacrifice [Vulg. adds " and to kill 
victims] continually .... then may also my covenant be broken 



276 Pentateuchal Studies 

.... with the Levites [Vulg. adds " and "] the priests [Syriac, 
inverting, reads " the priests and the Levites "], my servants." 
Now there we have the two views in a nutshell. To the prophet, 
" the priests the Levites " are the ministers of God who are 
qualified to serve him at the altar of the religious capital: 
to later interpretation, priests and Levites are two separate 
classes : the latter are occupied in killing victims, while only 
the former are qualified to discharge the higher duties. The 
verses are lacking altogether in the LXX, and are for that rea- 
son thought by some to be the work of a later writer. If that 
were so, it would merely prove that the original view survived 
to a later date than that of Jeremiah. As the priestly func- 
tions of Levi are fully recognized by Malachi (ii. 1-9; iii. 3), 
and, as will be seen hereafter, were also regarded as histori- 
cally true by Ezekiel, it appears clearly that the whole of the 
second part of the Hebrew canon adopts the standpoint of the 
Law. The Aaronic priesthood was merged in the Levitical by 
the dispositions of Deuteronomy, and the high priesthood was 
subsequently transferred from the line of Aaron to Zadok. 
In the organization of the hierarchy there was development 
during this period, but no breach, save in the Northern king- 
dom, with the fundamental principle that the priesthood was 
Levitical. The duties of the priests remained substantially 
what they had been from the Mosaic age onwards, — the 
charge of the great central sanctuary with its national offer- 
ings, the performance of the priestly duties in the case of 
statutory individual offerings, the consulting of the Urim and 
Thummim, and the giving of torah. Amid modifications and 
developments of details the main outlines of the priestly posi- 
tion and the priestly duties remain unchanged. Haggai and 
Malachi draw for us the same picture of the priesthood as 
Leviticus and Deuteronomy. One prophet, however, deserves 



Priests and Levites 277 

separate consideration — not because he contradicts our other 
data, but because special importance has been attached to his 
work by the modern critical school. We shall see that he holds 
the same views of the course of history as the other authori- 
ties we have examined, but that he also realized that the 
changes of circumstances which had taken place in the course 
of centuries called for corresponding changes in the priestly 
organization and ritual, and that he accordingly propounded 
a scheme, not by way of literary fraud but speaking in his own 
proper person as the messenger of God. 

EZEKIEL 

The prophet Ezekiel was of priestly descent and displays 
extraordinary interest in matters of priestly concern. The 
part of his work that most closely concerns us is a portion of 
the vision with which the concluding chapters of his book 
are occupied; but, as it has been asserted that he was unac- 
quainted with P, we must just glance at one or two of the 
facts that are material to this question. No reader of Ezekiel 
will deny that there exists between him and P some very close 
relationship. Either he has steeped his mind in the phrases 
and thoughts of the Pentateuch or else he in some way in- 
fluenced its composition. In considering which of these two 
views is correct it is necessary to recall several facts. 

Ezekiel writes : " Her priests have done violence to my 
law, and have profaned mine holy things : they have put 
no difference between the holy and the common, neither have 
they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean, 
and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned 
among them " (xxii. 26). This is tantamount to a direct state- 
ment that Ezekiel knew a law following the very words of 



278 Pentateuchal Studies 

Leviticus x. 10 and other passages of P. 1 Other proofs are 
provided by the passages of earlier writers and Ezekiel himself 
that have been examined in " Studies in Biblical Law," " Es- 
says in Pentateuchal Criticism," and the present article, and 
by the internal marks of date shown by P itself. It may safely 
be said that, but for the long-standing misconceptions of the 
meaning of P, nobody would ever have dreamt of denying 
Ezekiel's acquaintance with it. 

When we come to the vision several things strike us. 
Ezekiel omits to mention many existing institutions; for in- 
stance, the high priesthood and the Feast of Weeks. Whatever 
the reason may be, it is clear that such omissions cannot give 
ground for an argument from silence, seeing that both these 
institutions admittedly existed long before his time. Other 
elements in his proposed legislation were clearly ideal and 
could never have been realized without a miracle. In some 
cases our information does not suffice to enable us to under- 
stand what was in the prophet's mind when he put forward 
his plan for dealing with them. Yet in the case of the most 
important of all the proposed changes — the distinction be- 
tween the sons of Zadok and the other Levites — the reasons 
he gives are so clear, and are so convincingly supported by our 
other information, that we cannot fail to understand the work- 
ings of his mind. 

In xl. 45, 46, he begins to draw a distinction between " the 
priests that keep the charge of the house " and " the priests 
that keep the charge of the altar, they are the sons of Zadok 

1 This conclusively refutes Wellhausen's "That the prophet 
should know nothing about a priestly law with whose tendencies 
he is in thorough sympathy admits of only one explanation, — that 
it did not then exist" (p. 124). Compare, also, the inference on 
page 123 as to the non-existence of "the systematic separation of 
that which was holy from profane contact." 



Priests and Levites 279 

that come near from among the sons of Levi to the Lord to 
serve him " ; and this is continued in subsequent chapters. 
But the most important passage of all is xliv. 6-16 : — 

"And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, 
Thus saith the Lord God: O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you 
of all your abominations, in that ye have brought in aliens, un- 
circumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctu- 
ary, to profane it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat 
and the blood, and ye [so read with LXX, Syriac, Vulgate] have 
broken my covenant with [so read with LXX, Syriac. Vulg.] all 
your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of mine 
holy things: but ye have set [read probably "them as," changing 
one letter of the Hebrew,] keepers of my charge in my sanctuary. 
Therefore [so read with LXX] thus saith the Lord God, No alien 
uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into 
my isanctuary, of any alien that is among the children of Israel. 
But the Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray, 
which went astray from me after their idols; they shall bear their 
iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having 
oversight at the gates of the house, and ministering in the house; 
they shall slay the burnt-offering and the sacrifice for the people, 
and they shall stand before them to minister unto them. Because 
they ministered unto them before their idols, and became a 
stumbling-block of iniquity unto the house of Israel ; therefore have 
I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they 
shall bear their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto me, 
to execute the office of priest unto me, nor to come near to any of 
my holy things, unto the things that are most holy: but they shall 
bear their shame, and their abominations which they have com- 
mitted. Yet will I make them keepers of the Charge of the house, 
for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein. 
But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge 
of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, 
they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall 
stand before me to offer unto me the fat and blood, saith the Lord 
God: they shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near 
to my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my charge." 

The ideas here set forth are worked out further in other 
parts of the vision. In view of all the facts we have consid- 
ered, the prophet's meaning is sun-clear. Under the old 
system many abuses had crept in. One that concerns us 



280 Pentateuchal Studies 

particularly relates to the entry of aliens into the sanctuary. 
We have seen that the Pentateuch expected the sacrificant 
himself to slay the animals that he presented for sacrifice at 
the religious capital. With the growth of luxury well-to-do 
people would naturally develop a distaste for the functions of 
a slaughterer; while the increase of wealth, with the concomi- 
tant increase in the number of victims offered, rendered the 
task impossible. To meet this and other necessities of the 
natural expansion of the sacrificial organization, heathen 
hierodules had been introduced. Ezekiel held that this and 
other practices were inconsistent with the proper separation of 
holy and profane. And so he puts forward a scheme of legis- 
lation which shall apply the Mosaic principles to the altered 
circumstances of the age. Among the Levites most had been 
faithless : Ezekiel therefore degrades them from their right to 
the full priesthood and provides that they shall take the place 
of the temple slaves in certain necessary functions. On the 
other hand the sons of Zadok had been loyal to their charge. 
They are therefore to have the monopoly of the full priestly 
position, and Ezekiel practically reenacts — with slight modi- 
fications — the Pentateuchal legislation as to the sons of Aaron, 
this time applying it to the sons of Zadok, whom history and 
the Divine choice had set in the place of the descendants of the 
first high priest. Other provisions (e.g. xlii. 14; xlv. 4ff.) 
are designed to carry out more effectually the dominating 
principle of the legislation — the due separation and safe- 
guarding of what is holy. The architecture is also stated to 
be inspired by this consideration (see especially xliii. 7ff.). 
No doubt Ezekiel throughout borrows from the ideas of the 
Pentateuch : the idea of the separation between the sons of 
Zadok and the rest of the Levites is suggested by the old 
wilderness distinction between the sons of Aaron and the sons 



Priests and Levites 281 



of Levi. His very phraseology is adopted from the language 
of P, though familiar expressions such as " keep the charge " 
are invested with a new meaning suited to the circumstances 
of the age and the nature of the functions to be performed. 
In so far as it is practical, Ezekiel's legislation may be defined 
as an endeavor to bring up to date and apply to changed cir- 
cumstances the ideas of the legislation of the wilderness. The 
need of the reform was suggested by the abuses in the temple 
of Solomon and the disloyalty of the Levites ; its principles 
were developed from the ideas of the priestly legislation; its 
language was borrowed from the Pentateuch ; its methods 
were dictated by the teachings of experience. 1 

CONCLUSION 

On the view set forth in these pages, the last book in the 
Hebrew canon no longer governs the meaning of the first, and 
the history follows an orderly and intelligible course from 

1 This paper is already so long that further remarks about 
Ezekiel's vision must be compressed as much as possible. The ex- 
planation given of the provisions as to the Levites contains two 
elements: (1) that it was designed to regulate circumstances that 
had arisen since the time of Moses and to remedy obvious abuses 
and defects, and (2) that for this purpose Ezekiel followed as 
closely as he could the old Mosaic provisions. Both these are con- 
firmed by other portions of the vision. 

(1) A king's offering had come into existence in the monarchy 
in addition to the statutory national offerings (2 Kings xvi. 15). 
Naturally Moses had not provided for this. Ezekiel apparently 
regulates it in xlvi. 2, 4-8, 11-15; for in 13 f. the second person 
appears to have ousted the third which is found in several MSS. 
and Versions. I do not think that these offerings are identical with 
the national offerings which, according to xlv. 16 f., were to be 
provided by the prince out of the oblation there mentioned. On the 
contrary, they appear to be additional and in substitution for the 
king's offering, not for the statutory national offerings which 
were instituted by the Pentateuch, and (see Essays in Pentateuchal 
Criticism, pp. 200-202) are found in existence during the monarchy. 
Other additions to the Pentateuchal legislation (e.g. xlvi. 16-18) 



282 Pentateuchal Studi 



cs 



Moses to Malachi. The priesthood of Aaron and his family is 
created to provide for the due exercise of the sacerdotal 
functions, and for the desert period a tribe is set apart to act 
as sacred porters of the wilderness sanctuary. At the same 
time a corpus of ritual legislation is given, some of which 
applies only to the age of Moses, while other portions, intended 
for use after the conquest, require for their administration, in 
the conditions of settled life, a numerous and scattered priest- 
hood, such as could not be provided by the descendants of 
Aaron living at the time of the conquest. On the eve of the 
entry into the promised land, Deuteronomy enlarged the rights 
and duties of the Levites to meet the need thus created. From 
Moses to Malachi every writer who touches on the subject 
recognizes this Levitical priesthood. The high priesthood 
remained in the house of Aaron till the time of Solomon, when 
it was definitely transferred from Abiathar to Zadok of the 
tribe of Levi, and it remained permanently in the house of the 
latter. Ezekiel, writing in the exile, strove to purify the 

are evidently also due to post-Mosaic changes (this indeed applies 
to xlv. 16 f.). Probably many of his other ordinances are intended 
to meet later abuses. For instance, when one reads xlvi. 19-24, the 
scene at Shiloh in the days of Eli's sons recurs to the mind, and 
one wonders whether this and other architectural details are not 
intended to insure improvements on the practice of Solomon's 
temple. 

(2) With regard to the Mosaic inspiration, Van Hoonacker ap- 
pears to me to have hit the nail on the head with his suggestion 
that the impracticable chess-board division of the land — so im- 
possible in a country like Canaan — was suggested by the desert 
camp where, of course, the Mosaic pattern was feasible and natural. 
In No. 14, supra, I have adduced evidence for holding that the 
" king " of tbe Massoretic text was unknown to the original 
text of Deuteronomy, in which case Ezekiel's " prince " would 
be an intentional reversion to the language of Moses. While there- 
fore it must be fully admitted that Ezekiel's vision is impractica- 
ble and contains ideal elements, it does not seem to be nearly so 
difficult of explanation as is commonly supposed. 



Priests and Levites 283 

priesthood and the ritual from the abuses which had crept in. 
Finding his inspiration in the books of Moses, and seeking to 
remedy the serious faults of the organization, he put forward 
a plan for once more dividing the Levitical priesthood into 
two classes; the one consisting of the descendants of Zadok, 
who should be priests of the highest type; the other formed 
by the disloyal Levites, who should discharge a lower ministry. 
In many respects his scheme influenced the course of history, 
and we find that in the days of Nehemiah a distinction is drawn 
between priests and Levites, though we cannot suppose that the 
sons of Zadok were alone recognized as priests. The national 
misfortunes had put a new spirit into the people. A study of 
the Law in its entirety, including even the most technical parts, 
began to spread in non-priestly circles. 1 The destruction of 
Kingdom and Temple had put an end to the period in which 
new precedents were readily created to meet fresh needs. It 
had also dispersed the central body of priests who had con- 
tinued the line of interpreters of the original meaning of the 
Mosaic, law. This task now fell to men who were not equally 
in touch with the original living tradition, and might be largely 
theorists not particularly fitted by their professional occupa- 
tions to solve the problems that arose. The results were 
curious. On the one hand men regarded the Torah as con- 
taining unchangeable rules that were applicable to their own 
day : on the other they were confronted with institutions 
(such as the Nethinim and the children of Solomon's servants) 
that were long subsequent to the age of Moses, and with needs 
for which the Torah did not provide. The creative period was 
over ; it only remained to modify under the guise of explain- 
originally large portions of the Pentateuch were intended to 
reach the people only through the teaching of the priests. Even 
Ezekiel (xliv. 23) held this view as completely as Moses and the 
other prophets. 



284 Pentaieuchal Studies 

ing. Accordingly there arose a system of interpretation which 
read the Law in the light of circumstances for which it was 
never intended, and put into its provisions meanings that had 
not been contemplated by the Lawgiver. The chain of living 
tradition and formative precedent had been snapped by the 
exile : the work of Ezekiel had tended to direct the current of 
religious progress into the new-old channels that seemed to 
provide for the needs of the period by the devices of the Mo- 
saic ordinances : the labors of the scholarly interpreters of the 
Law — the scribes — did the rest. These factors brought into 
existence the non-Mosaic Mosaism with which we meet in 
the books of Chronicles and in the glosses on the text of the 
earlier books. 1 

1 With regard to the Chronicler, I think it well to quote the fol- 
lowing passage from my review of Curtis and Madsen's commen- 
tary in the Churchman (London) for January, 1911, in explanation 
of the true purpose of his work : — " It is to be observed that the 
Chronicler himself twice refers to a ' midrash ' as an authority. 
The following extract from the article ' Midrash ' in the ' Jewish 
Encyclopaedia ' throws some light on the meaning of this expression : 

" 'A term occurring as early as 2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 27, though 
perhaps not in the sense in which it came to be used later, and 
denoting " exposition," " exegesis," especially that of the Scrip- 
tures. In contradistinction to literal interpretation, subsequently 
called " peshat," the term " midrash " designates an exegesis 
which, going more deeply than the mere literal sense, attempts to 
penetrate into the spirit of the Scriptures, to examine the text 
from all sides, and thereby to derive interpretations which are not 
immediately obvious. . . . The divergence between midrash and 
peshat increased steadily ; and, although the consciousness of this 
divergence may not have increased in a proportionate degree .... 
it was never wholly obscured' (vol. viii. p. 548). 

" Of the countless millions of Jews who have used this term 
through the ages, one only has produced work that was deemed 
worthy of inclusion in the Canon.. That one was the Chronicler. 
It is reasonable to suppose that he knew the meaning that the ex- 
pression had in his own time, and the only question that can arise 
is whether that meaning was or was not the same as in later 



Priests and Levites 285 

times. If we found such a word as ' allegory ' employed by a 
narrator to designate one of his sources, it would be fair to in- 
quire whether he used the word in the sense that appears natural 
to us, or in some other sense, and the answer would be determined 
by internal evidence. If it then appeared that the narrative based 
on that source really was allegorical in character, we should con- 
clude (1) that he had in fact used the word in the sense with 
which we are familiar, and (2) that his original public would 
have understood this as well as we do. 

" Now, any thinking reader of 2 Chron. xiii. will, I imagine, agree 
that it is not literal history. When, therefore, we find the only 
authority referred to in this chapter designated by the appropriate 
term 'midrash,' it seems impossible to doubt that the expression 
is used in substantially the same sense as later, and that the 
Chronicler and his original readers appreciated this as well as 
could any modern. (R. V. 'commentary' entirely fails to convey the 
meaning of 'midrash.') The real meaning of the chapter must be 
sought in such phrases as, ' But as for us, the Lord is our God, 
and we have not forsaken Him ; ' 'And, behold, God is with us 
at our head ; ' ' O children of Israel, fight ye not against the Lord, 
the God of our fathers.' And so it came about that Talmudic au- 
thorities did not question the canonicity of Chronicles, but treated 
it as a book intended for the particular kind of spiritual exposi- 
tion which is designated ' midrash.' This is really what is meant 
by the harsh and unsympathetic paragraph of the ' Jewish Ency- 
clopaedia,' which Professor Curtis summarizes in the following sen- 
tence : 

" ' While in rabbinical literature Chronicles was regarded with 
suspicion, its historical accuracy being doubted by Talmudic author- 
ities, and it being held to be a book for homiletical interpretation, 
yet its canonicity, as some have thought, never seems really to 
have been questioned' (p. 2). 

" Failure to grasp this truth has led to the most perverted views 
of the Chronicler, his work, and its historical and religious value. 
I suppose that, after what has been said, my readers will have no 
difficulty in appreciating 2 Chron. xiii. Let us glance at another 
instance: In 1 Chron. xxv. we are told that David instituted cer- 
tain Levitical musical services. Verse 4 brings us to a list of 
names. Though there is a good deal of corruption, it is absolutely 
certain that many of these names are not proper names at all, but 
Hebrew words including some verbs like ' Giddalti ' (I have made 
great). It is generally agreed that originally these words formed 
a consecutive sentence, but owing to the state of the text the ex- 



286 Pentateuchal Studies 

act details are not clear. The reading favoured by Professor Cur- 
tis is rendered by him as follows : 

" ' Be gracious unto me, O Yah, be gracious unto me ; 
Thou art my God whom I magnify and exalt. 
O my Help (or. Thou art my Help) when in trouble, I say, 
He giveth (or, Give) an abundance of visions.' 

"This rendering will do as well as any other for the purpose 
of my illustration. It will then be followed immediately by verse 
5, 'All these were the sons of Heman the king's seer in the words 
of God,' etc. Now, I ask, if this were an English book, would any 
English reader think there were men who literally were called by 
such names as ' I magnify.' etc. ? Would he proceed to infer that 
the author of the book believed this to be literal history, or for 
one moment imagined that his readers could suppose it to be so? 
Would he, then, charge him with ' deliberate invention or distor- 
tion of history,' or seek to defend him against such a charge by 
insisting that he has 'worked everywhere according to sources'? 
(See J. Wellhausen. "Prolegomena." Eng. trans, p. 222 (quoting 
Dillmann).) Or would he inveigh against his 'law-crazed fancy'? 
(Op. cit., p. 195.) Or would he write a note saying, 'Why what 
was possibly an ancient prayer should thus be resolved into proper 
names cannot be determined'? (Curtis and Madsen, p. 278.) How 
many readers of the ' Odyssey ' wonder that Ovn% could have been 
regarded as a name by Odysseus and the Cyclops — or the Greeks 
who listened to the Rhapsodists? What would happen if the 'Pil- 
grim's Progress " were edited on such lines? Or is it really sup- 
posed that a Hebrew-writing canonical author could be so ineffably 
stupid as to write words like ' I magnify,' ' I exalt.' etc.. in Ms own 
language without understanding what he was writing? Read the 
lines of the prayer as conjectural ly restored, and consider : were 
not all these in a very deep and spiritual sense the sons of Heman 
the king's seer in the words of God? Can any Temple service do 
more than establish such communion between men and God? The 
chapter may be corrupt, the details are not in all cases clear, but 
the bed-rock meaning is as plain as could be desired. When the 
Chronicler is tried for this falsification of history, all who have 
ever spoken in parable or allegory will be his companions in the 
dock. Shall we speak of law-crazed fancy or spiritual insight?" 



XXI 
THE HIGH PRIEST 

[From the BiUiotJieoa Sacra, January, 1911.] 

The paper on " Priests and Levites " 1 grew so long that it 
was impossible to include many remarks on the high priest; 
yet one or two observations fall to be made respecting Well- 
hausen's theory on this point. Most of his discussion consists 
simply in putting indubitable facts from his own peculiar point 
of view. Thus it is certainly the case that in 1 Samuel ii. 36 
the principal priest appoints some of his inferiors: but this 
really tells against Wellhausen. The Priestly Code knows no 
priestly offices with salaries attached and points to a much sim- 
pler organization. Aaron's sons act under his oversight (Num. 
iii. 4), as Wellhausen urges on page 149 of his Prolegomena; 
but that is true of the inferior priests from the earliest times. 
Eli's sons proved too insubordinate for their weak and aged 
father, yet the latter was held responsible by the prophet — ob- 
viously because it was his duty to control them. The whole of 
Wellhausen's reasoning about the king is worthless unless the 
Priestly Code can be demonstrated to be post-Mosaic. In the 
discussion of " Priests and Levites " it was shown to be untrue 
that " the so-called Mosaic theocracy .... is, so to speak, a 
perfect fit for post-exilian Judaism and had its actuality only 
there " 2 and this is proved still more fully in my article 
above, " Some Aspects of the Conservative Task in Penta- 
teuchal Criticism." 3 As a whole the question of the high 
priest has very little decisive force one way or another, because 
in dealing with it Wellhausen has not produced a single cogent 

argument. His discussion is noteworthy only for its special 
1 Supra, No. 20. 2 Op. ait., p. 151. 3 Supra, No. 1. 

287 



288 Pentateuchal Studies 

coloring, yet there is one point that calls for notice. On page 
150, he writes : " His death makes an epoch ; it is when the high 
priest — not the king — dies that the fugitive slayer obtains his 
amnesty (Num. xxxv. 28)." In point of fact this very law — 
that of Numbers xxxv. — was singled out by Dareste as the 
most archaic portion of the legislation. I reproduce here his 
remarks, together with some comments of my own from page 
24 of my " Notes on Hebrew Religion " : — 

"Nous n'avons pas & examiner ici & quelle epoque a ete ecrit le 
Pentateuque. Ce qu'on peut affirmer, c'est que les institutions dont 
il nous donne le tableau sont tres anciennes, contemporaines 
de l'elablissenient d'un pouvoir central. On en trouve d'ana- 
logues chez tous les peuples, au moment ou ils ont cesse d'etre 
un assemblage de families pour devenir une nation et former 
d'etre un assemblage de families pour devenir une nation et former 
un Etat. Ce n'est pas non plus une legislation ideale, une utopie 
retrospective. II n'y a pas une des lois mosaiques qui n'ait ete 
r6ellement pratiqu6e chez des peuples autres que les HSbreux. La 
plus archai'que de ces lois est celle que nous lisons dans le chapitre 
xxxv. du livre des N ombres" (Etudes d'Histoire du Droit, p. 28, 
n.). The last two sentences appear to me to need some qualifica- 
tion — e.g., it might reasonably be contended that some other por- 
tions of the legislation are as archaic (as distinguished from an- 
cient) as Num. xxxv. (I would remark parenthetically, that on p. 
22 Dareste had devoted special attention to this chapter and its 
parallels in Greek and Icelandic law.) Indeed, I gather from pp. 
23, 24, that Dareste would say the same of Deut. xxi. 1-9. But the 
soundness of his general position could not be questioned by any 
student of comparative jurisprudence who examined the Mosaic 
legislation with an unprejudiced mind." 

The true explanation of the position of the high priest is 
quite different from that supposed by Wellhausen. This law 
is merely a generalization and amplification of the personal ex- 
periences of Moses the manslayer x and the high priest takes 
the place of Pharaoh because he was the only permanent he- 
reditary official created by the law. 

1 See Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 104 f . 



The High Priest 289 



Wellhausen's idea of the high priest is really closely bound 
up with his view that P represents the Israelites as a church. 
In another place he writes : " Now the smaller sacred fellow- 
ships get lost, the varied groups of social life disappear in the 
neutral shadow of the universal congregation or church my, 
^np). The notion of this last is foreign to Hebrew antiquity, 
but runs through the Priestly Code from beginning to end " 
(p. 78). It would be truer to say that our translation of these 
Hebrew words colors them in a manner that does not accurately 
represent the original meaning. When we read of bees 
(Judges xiv. 8) we do not postulate an ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion, and translate by " congregation " or " church " just be- 
cause we find the word rnt : nor is it true that the notion con- 
veyed by these words is foreign to Hebrew antiquity. Deuter- 
onomy contains laws excluding certain persons from the ^np, 
and Genesis xlix. 6; Numbers xxii. 4 (R. V., "multitude") ; 
Deuteronomy v. 22 ; ix. 10 ; xxxi. 30 ; Joshua viii. 35 ; 1 Samuel 
xvii. 47 ; 1 Kings viii. 14 ; Micah ii. 5 ; 1 Kings xii. 20, all pro- 
test against Wellhausen's allegations. On the other hand, in 
many cases " horde," and even " crowd," would render the 
meaning of the words more exactly to modern readers than the 
translation " congregation." 



XXII 

THE FIFTH CHAPTER OF WELLHAUSEN'S 
PROLEGOMENA 

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1911.] 

The fifth chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena completes 
the " History of Worship," which forms the earliest and 
most important division of this celebrated book. It is en- 
titled " The Endowment of the Clergy," and while it does 
not possess anything like the interest or the consequence of 
the first four chapters it yet claims consideration in this series 
of articles. In many respects it carries to their logical con- 
clusions mistakes that we have had to examine in their earlier 
stages. It is thus natural to subject it to some consideration, 
although the topics with which it deals are in some instances 
incapable of satisfactory treatment because of the extreme 
scantiness of our material. The chapter itself is divided 
into two main sections, — the first dealing with certain offer- 
ings, the second with the Levitical cities. 

i. 
The various kinds of offerings must, of course, be con- 
sidered separately. This chapter is singularly difficult to 
deal with satisfactorily, for Wellhausen here surpasses him- 
self in inaccuracy and confusion; as, for instance, when he 
writes, " In Deuteronomy the priests are entirely thrown upon 

the sacrifices if they are not exercising the priestly 

function they must starve (1 Sam. ii. 36)." 1 How or when 

1 Prolegomena (Eng. Trans.), p. 155. 

290 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 291 

First Samuel became a part of Deuteronomy is not explained 
nor are we told why the denunciation which obviously applies 
only to a single house — that of Eli — should be extended 
to the other priestly houses which were not implicated in 
its guilt. The statement itself is contradicted on the pre- 
ceding page, where we are informed that " at an earlier 
date the priests of Jerusalem received money from those who 
employed them (Deut. xviii. 8), but for this had the obliga- 
tion of maintaining the temple." This is an extraordinary 
falsehood, for Deuteronomy xviii. 8 reads : " They [i.e. 
Levites coming from the provinces] shall have like portions 
to eat, beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony!' 
In Wellhausen's hands this becomes a payment of money 
from those who employed them, coupled with an obligation 
of maintaining the temple, and that though, on the very next 
page, he alleges that they ,are entirely thrown upon the 
sacrifices. 

In refuting such a discussion the only course open is to 
pick out the more or less salient points and treat of those — 
for the correction of every minor inaccuracy would consume 
space needlessly. The first matter of importance appears to 
be a comparison of the priestly dues in 1 Samuel ii. 12-16 ; 
Deuteronomy xviii. 3 ; and Leviticus vii. 34. In the first 
passage the " tribute of raw portions of flesh before the 
burning of the fat " is " treated as a shameless demand." 
" More tolerable is it, though even that is an abuse, when 
the priests cause boiled flesh to be brought them from the 
pot" (p. 153). Now I have already shown that, contrary to 
Wellhausen's assumption, the Priestly Code contemplates 
boiled flesh for the priestly dues, 1 and of course, on any view, 

1 Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, pp. 211 f. = Bibliotkeca Sacra, 
October, 1909, pp. 728 f. 






292 Pentateuchal Studies 

the conduct of the priests is an abuse; thus there is no dis- 
crepancy between this passage and Leviticus. There re- 
mains the question of the relations between Deuteronomy and 
Leviticus. 

" .... We have it in Deuteronomy as ' the priest's due from the 
people ' (xviii. 3=1 Sam. ii. 12) that he receives the shoulder and 
the two cheeks and the maw of the slaughtered animal; and yet 
this is a modest claim compared with what the sons of Aaron 
have in the Priestly Code (Lev. vii. 34), — the right leg and the 
breast. The course of the development is plain; the Priestly Code 
became law for Judaism. In sacrifice, its demands were those 
which were regarded ; but in order to fulfil all righteousness the 
precept of Deuteronomy was also maintained, this being applied 
— against the obvious meaning and certainly only as a result of 
later scrupulosity of the scribes — not to sacrifices but to ordinary 
secular slaughterings, from which also accordingly the priests re- 
ceived a portion . . . .the precept being thus harmonistically 
doubled" (pp. 153 f.). 

It will probably come as a surprise to Wellhausen's fol- 
lowers to be told that Deuteronomy does not permit any 
" ordinary secular slaughterings " in the religious capital ; 
but the express terms of the law are in this matter too clear 
for doubt : " If the place which the Lord thy God shall 
choose to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou 
mayest kill of thy herd and of thy flock. . . .and thou mayest 
eat within thy gates" (xii. 20). That is plain enough: the 
permission is limited to those who live at too great a dis- 
tance from the place. But it is so worded as not to apply to 
the capital. Hence animals slaughtered there for food purposes, 
only, would still have to be sacrificed. If we turn to Deuter- 
onomy xviii. 3, we find that it deals with the priests' due 
" from them that slaughter a sacrifice." The conjecture lies 
close at hand that the law is intended to apply to inhabitants 
of the capital sacrificing merely for food purposes. They 
would be under a heavy disadvantage as compared with per- 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 293 

sons dwelling at a distance in having to pay any due at all 

on such animals, and accordingly the legislation grants them 
some relief in making it lighter than that on an ordinary peace- 
offering. It is of course impossible on our present materials 
to prove this with certainty. All that can be said is that 
the permission of profane slaughtering did not apply to these 
inhabitants so that they must have had to pay some due; that 
Deuteronomy xviii. in terms covers their case; and that it is, 
therefore, reasonable to suppose that it is to them that the 
due contemplated by Deuteronomy xviii. applies. 1 This ex- 
plains the difference of terminology between Deuteronomy 
and Leviticus (which applies in terms to sacrifices of peace- 
offerings). 

The next matter of importance dealt with in this chapter 
is the question of firstlings. I have treated of this before, 
but I think it well to allude to the matter shortly. Well- 
hausen believes that in Deuteronomy xv. 19, 20, " to sanctify 
unto the Lord," " to eat before the Lord," and " to offer to the 
Lord " are three equivalent ideas. 

" .... If now, in Num. xviii. 15 seq., every first birth is assigned 
without circumlocution to the priest, and a special paschal offering 
is appointed in addition, this can only be understood as the last 
phase in the development, partly because the idea of dues alto- 
gether is secondary to that of offerings, and partly because the 

1 During the desert period, animals killed for food were to be 
sacrificed for peace-offerings .from the time of the enactment of 
Leviticus xvii. 5. Presumably, therefore, the usual dues on a peace- 
offering were paid on them, and so long as a sufficiency of manna 
was miraculously provided for food, this involved no hardship. 
But the case of the inhabitants of the capital was different. From 
the time of the settlement they alone of all Israelites were under 
a legal incapacity to slaughter non-sacrificially for food. It would 
therefore be reasonable that a smaller due should be paid by them 
on such sacrifices than was habitual in the case of ordinary peace- 
offerings. 



294 Pentateuchal Studies 

immense augmentation to the income of the priests points to an 
increase of the hierocratic power" (pp. 155 f.). 

The answer is shortly that a careful examination of the legal 
texts shows that in the Law this sanctifying of an animal 
meant withdrawing it from ordinary use, and sacrificing it to 
the Lord ; and that the rule in Numbers v. 9 f . expressly ap- 
plies to such cases, and explains the relationship of Deuteron- 
omy xv. and Numbers xviii. On the true construction of the 
laws, a heave-offering was to be given to the priest ; and Num- 
bers xviii. only applies to such heave-offerings. Probably this 
heave-offering usually consisted of one or more firstlings. 
The fact that the law was interpreted otherwise after the exile 
cannot of course override its very plain expressions. 1 

Before dealing with tithes, we may clear away the unsound 
views entertained by Wellhausen about first-fruits. 

" With the tithe of the fruit of the soil the first-fruits are at 
bottom identical ; the latter were reduced to definite measure later 
and through the influence of the former. . . . But also the reshith, 
usually translated first-fruits, occurs in Deuteronomy, — as a pay- 
ment of corn, wine, oil, and wool to the priests (xviii. 4) ; a small 
portion, a basketful, thereof is brought before the altar and dedi- 
cated with a significant liturgy (xxvi. 1 seq.). It appears that it 
is taken from the tithe, as might be inferred from xxvi. 12 seq. 
taken as the continuation of vers. 1-11 ; in one passage, xxvi. 2, the 
more general usus loquendi reappears, according to which the reshith 
means the entire consecrated fruit, which as a whole is consumed 
by the offerers before the Lord, 2 and of which the priests receive 
only a portion. But in the Priestly Code not only is the entire 
tithe demanded as a due of the clergy, the reshith also is de- 
manded in addition (Num. xviii. 12), and it is further multiplied, 
inasmuch as it is demanded from the kneading-trough as well as 
from the threshing-floor; in every leavening the halla belongs to the 
Lord (xv. 20). Nor is this all; to the reshith (xviii. 12), are added 
the lilckurim also (xviii. 13), as something distinct. The distinc- 

1 For proof of the above, see the Churchman (London), July, 
1906, pp. 425-430. 

2 As usual I have substituted "the Lord" for Wellhausen's 
transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 295 

tion does not occur elsewhere (Exod. xxxiv. 26) ; prepared fruits 
alone are invariably spoken of, the yield of the threshing-floor and 
the wine-press, of which first produce — 'the fulness and the 
overflow ' — was to be consecrated. The fat of oil, wine, and corn 
is the main thing in Num. xviii. also, and is called reshith (ver. 
12 ) or terumah (ver. 27) ; but the MkJcurim (ver. 13) seem to be 
a separate thing, and, if this be really the case, must mean those 
raw fruits which have ripened earliest" (pp. 157 f.). 

It is well in answering this to begin with reshith and 
bikkurim. There can be no doubt as to the enormous dif- 
ference between the two in the legal texts. 

First, as to the dates. In Leviticus xxiii. we have clear 
proof that the two offerings were separated by an interval 
of seven weeks. Reshith was offered (ver. 10 and 11) forty-nine 
days before bikkurim (ver. 15-17). The day of the bikkurim 
was the feast of weeks, or Pentecost, and it is with this date 
that the bikkurim are invariably associated in the legal texts 
(compare Ex. xxiii. 16, 19; xxxiv. 22, 26; Num. xxxiii. 26). 
No attempt to divide into different codes can alter this, for 
the dating appears equally in passages that are assigned to 
the earliest and to the latest stage. 

Secondly, as to the preparation and treatment. Reshith 
was offered raw, bikkurim were cooked : reshith could not 
constitute a meal-offering, bikkurim could and did. We see 
this clearly in Leviticus xxiii. 10-20, where an omer (either 
sheaf or measure) of reshith is waved, while bikkurim are 
offered in the form of a meal-offering, loaves made of flour. 
We see it not less clearly in Leviticus ii. 11-16. The two 
earlier verses (11 f.) make it plain that reshith could not come 
up for a sweet savor on the altar: while in verses 14-16 
bikkurim are constituents of an offering made by fire. Note, 
too, that bikkurim are " parched with fire, bruised corn of 
the first ear," while reshith was not treated in any way, as 
appears from the fact that honey could be offered as reshith. 



296 Pentateuchal Studies 

Thirdly, as to the materials. Reshith is applied to oil, 
wine, corn, wool, fruits of the ground, honey, leaven, and 
dough (or meal?) : x bikkurim in the legal texts relates only 
to that " which thou sowest in the field." 2 But even here it 
must be obvious that the reshith of cereals offered raw seven 
weeks before the beginning of wheat harvest was really a differ- 
ent material to bikkurim offered at the opening of the harvest 
as loaves or parched corn. Of the perfect distinctness of the 
two offerings throughout the Mosaic legislation there can be 
no reasonable doubt. It may be added that this fixes the 
meaning of Exodus xxii. 28 (29), which is rendered literally, 
" thy fullness and thy tear thou shalt not delay." Such terms 
could not apply to bikkurim of that which was sown in the 
ground. These latter are enjoined in Exodus xxiii. 16, 19; 
and consequently it will be seen that we find both offerings 
side by side in the so-called Book of the Covenant. 

If now we turn to vegetable tithes, with which Wellhausen 
supposes the first-fruits to be at bottom identical, we shall 
see that these are differentiated from both reslnth and 
bikkurim with the utmost clearness. 

First, as to date. We have seen that bikkurim were offered 
at the opening of the harvest, and reshith of wheat seven 
weeks previously. Now of tithes we read : " thou shalt surely 
tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh forth of 
the field year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord 
the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil," 

1 See Lev. ii. 11 f. ; Num. xv. 17-21; xviii. 12; Deut. xviii. 4; xxvi. 
1-10. 

2 It is otherwise in Numbers xiii. 20, where, however, the Samari- 
tan text has a different word and in Nehemiah x. 36 (35), where the 
word is applied to the fruit of trees. This is only one more proof 
of the wide difference of date between the Pentateuch and the 
post-exilic period and the frequent misapprehensions of the true 
meaning of the laws after the exile. 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 29? 

etc. (Deut. xiv. 22 f.). Those were not operations that it 
lay within human power to perform at the beginning of the 
wheat harvest — still less seven weeks previously. Harvest- 
ing must have been completed before this command could be 
executed. 

Secondly, as to preparation and treatment. For the pres- 
ent purpose it is sufficient to draw attention to Deuteronomy 
xiv. 22 if. and xxvi. In the former of those two passages 
the tithe is regarded as the material of a festive meal, and 
also as something that might, if necessary, be sold and 
turned into money before being utilized. In the latter it 
forms the material for a meal for the Levites, etc., con- 
sumed locally. It need scarcely be said that these provisions 
are in glaring contrast with what we have seen as to reshith 
and bikkurim. In the case of the tithes there is neither wave- 
offering nor meal-offering. The bulk, too, differentiates tithes 
very sharply : for the provisions as to reshith and bikkurim 
obviously relate to small quantities. 

Thirdly, as to material. " The tithe of thy corn, of thy 
wine, and of thine oil " necessarily includes much that could 
not fall within the conception of bikkurim of that which thou 
sowest in the field. Again, in the case of the corn — the 
only common material — we have to remember that the dif- 
ference of date between the beginning and the end of the 
harvest would count for something. As to reshith we have 
already observed that the offering of corn was made seven 
weeks before the harvest opened, so that no confusion was 
possible here. It is true that in one passage we have reshith 
of wine and oil as well as of corn, but here the same prin- 
ciple applies. All offerings of reshith were (as the name 
itself implies) made of the first produce that came to hand. 
Tithes, on the other hand, were necessarily dependent on 



298 Pentatenchal Studies 

the ingathering of the whole of the produce. In other words, 
the two offerings mark respectively the opening and the close 
of the agricultural season. 

Once these distinctions are clearly grasped, it will be seen 
that it is sheer nonsense to speak of reshith as being taken 
from the tithe. One might as well say that January is taken 
from December. But one other point remains for considera- 
tion. Why is it that the vegetable tithe is not mentioned in 
the Book of the Covenant ? No certain answer can of course 
be given, but it is to be remembered that the practice of 
tithing had been instituted long before the Mosaic age. It 
was Jacob, not Moses, who vowed to God a tithe of all that 
he should give him (Gen. xxviii. 22). No doubt the custom 
applied in the first instance, chiefly at any rate, to cattle — 
the main source of the patriarch's wealth — but the exten- 
sion to crops was so natural that it may not have been felt 
necessary to incorporate any reference to the matter in the 
Book of the Covenant. First-fruits, on the other hand, were 
probably introduced into the religion of Israel for the first 
time by the provisions of Exodus. There is no ground for 
supposing that they were offered to Israel's God in patri- 
archal times, though of course the idea of an offering of 
first-fruits is common enough in other religions all the 
world over. 

What has been said of pre-Mosaic tithing disposes of Well- 

hausen's trouble as to animal tithes. 

" It is absolutely astounding that the tithe which in its proper 
nature should apply only to products of definite measure, such as 
corn and wine and oil (Deut. xiv. 23), conies to be extended in 
the Priestly Code to cattle also, so that besides the male firstling, 
every tenth head of cattle and of sheep must also be paid to the 
priests. This demand .... first occurs as a novel in Lev. xxvii. 
32 (1 Sam. viii. 17)" (p. 157). 

In point of fact the animal tithe dated from the time of 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhauseris Prolegomena 299 

Jacob. The animals were not to be given to the priests, nor 
is there any command to bring them to the religious capital: 
and the provisions of Leviticus xxvii. 32 merely provide for 
the animals being " holy," and not being redeemed. A 
" holy " animal was withdrawn from ordinary use and sac- 
rificed. In the absence of any command to bring it to the 
capital it could presumably be sacrificed locally in the pre- 
exilic period at lay altars of earth or unhewn stone. 

With regard to vegetable tithes I have treated of these 
elsewhere, 1 and will not here repeat myself. 

There is but one other point to notice in this division of 
the chapter. On page 159 we read : " there is a poll-tax, 
which is not indeed enjoined in the body of the Priestly Code, 
but which from the time of Nehemiah x. 33 [32] was paid 
at the rate of a third of a shekel, till a novel of the law 
(Exod. xxx. 15) raised it to half a shekel." As I have shown 
before, Exodus deals only with the census, the half shekel 
being a ransom; and, consequently, in its original meaning 
the passage has nothing on earth to do with any annual poll- 
tax (which was quite independent of any census). Here 
again interpretations and inferences designed to meet post- 
exilic needs cannot override the plain meaning of the law 
in a historical inquiry. 

II. 

In discussing the question of land it will be best to begin 
by noting the influence of one of our old friends — the con- 
fusion between the two kinds of altars. 

"Originally the altars were asylums (Exod. xxi. 14; 1 Kings ii. 
28), some in a higher degree than others (Exod. xxi. 13). In order 
not to abolish the asylums also along with the altars, the Deuter- 

1 Churchman, September, 1906, pp. 548 f ., 554 f . ; cp. Murray's Il- 
lustrated Bible Dictionary, s. v. " tithe." 



300 Pentateuchal Studies 

onomic legislator desired that certain holy places should continue 
as places of refuge. . . . The Priestly Code adopts the arrange- 
ment. . . . But as all these asylums are at the same time priestly 
and Levitical cities, it is an obvious conjecture that these also in 
like manner arose out of old sanctuaries" (p. 162). 

Mark how subtly the confusion has here done its work. Ig- 
nore the distinction between the hornless lay altars of Exo- 
dus xx. 24-26 and the single lawful horned altar of the 
religious capital, and the attributes of the latter can be 
attributed to the former. Then every lay altar of which 
we read becomes an asylum, and a wonderful piece of his- 
tory that never happened can be constructed on this founda- 
tion. Yet 1 Kings ii. 28, with its reference to the horns, 
shows quite clearly what contemporaries understood, and 
proves that such altars as those of Exodus xx. 24^26 could 
not give asylum : for no partisan of Wellhausen has yet been 
able to show how either loose earth or stone that would be 
denied by the swinging of a tool on it could without such 
defilement be made to yield horns. With regard to Exodus 
xxi. 13 f. the meaning is plain enough. The murderer was 
to be taken — as Joab was — even from the altar of the 
religious center: the homicide who was merely guilty of 
something like manslaughter was to have appointed for him 
(as actually happens in Numbers and Deuteronomy) a place 
of refuge. It is at this that 2 Samuel xiv. 14 glances. The 
idea that the Deuteronomic legislator desired something " in 
order not to abolish the asylums also along with the altars " 
is due to the failure to discriminate between objects which 
no eye-witness could possibly have confused. 

Turning now to the other points in order, we find that 
Wellhausen first objects that, in a mountainous country like 
Palestine, the land could not be geometrically portioned off 
in the method contemplated by Numbers xxxv. (p. 159). 






Fifth Chapter of Wellhausen's Prolegomena 301 

Here the answer of Van Hoonacker is extremely able and 
convincing : " As to the way in which the measurements were 
to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, 
the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually em- 
ployed. Besides we are free to believe that he only gives 
these figures as approximate indications." x Wellhausen next 
raises the following objection: — 

" . . . . Besides, from the time of Joshua there is not a historical 
trace of the existence of the Levitical cities. Quite a number of 
them were in the days of the judges and down to the early mon- 
archy still in the hands of the Canaanites, — Gibeon, Shechem, 
Gezer, Taanach ; some perhaps may even have so continued per- 
manently. Those on the other hand which passed into possession 
of the Israelites at no time belonged to the Levites. Shechem, 
Hebron, Ramoth, were the capital cities of Ephraim, Judah, and 
Gilead : and Gibeon, Gezer, Heshbon were in like manner impor- 
tant but by no means ecclesiastical towns. In the Deuteronomic 
period the Levites were scattered throughout Judah in such a 
manner that each locality had its own Levites or Levite ; nowhere 
did they live separated from the rest of the world in compact 
masses together, for they made their living by sacrificing for oth- 
ers, and without a community they could not exercise their call- 
ing. Some indeed possessed land and heritage; such were at an 
earlier period the Silonic family at Gibeath-Phineas, Amaziah at 
Bethel, and Abiathar at Anathoth, and at a later period Jere- 
miah, also at Anathoth. But Anathoth (for example) was not on 
that account a priestly city in the sense of Josh. xxi. ; Jeremiah 
had his holding there as a citizen and not as a priest, and he 
shared not with the priests but with the people (xxxvii. 12). As a 
tribe Levi was distinguished from the other tribes precisely by 
holding no land, and its members joined themselves to the settled 
citizens and peasants, for the most part as dependent inmates 
(Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1)" (p. 160). 

In reply, the first point to note is that there are traces of 
Levitical cities in the history. Amaziah of Bethel falls out 
of account because, as we are told in 1 Kings xii. 31, Jero- 
boam had made priests of non-Levitical families. But 
Anathoth is an absolutely clear case (1 Kings ii. 26; Jer. 
1 Sacerdoce levitique, p. 433. 



302 Pentatenchal Studies 

i. 1; xxxii.), and the fact that after an invasion we find 
that Jeremiah is stated to have gone forth to receive his 
portion in the midst of the people in no wise affects its im- 
portance. What precisely the phrase refers to — whether 
the reclaiming of the patrimonial property at Anathoth or the 
obtaining of some land that had been rendered vacant by 
the invasion — is not perhaps as clear as it might be. But it 
is plain from the other passages that, before this invasion, 
priests, who, on the Wellhausen theory, should have been 
entirely landless, in fact owned land at Anathoth. Jeremiah 
i., with its reference to the priests that were at Anathoth, is 
particularly important from this point of view. The plural 
" priests " shows that we are not dealing with the case of 
a single individual. Similarly with Beth-shemesh. In 1 Sam- 
uel vi. 13-15 we have the clearest indications of the presence 
of Levites. 1 Again, in 2 Samuel xx. 26, Jattirite appears to 
be the right reading, and the fact that David had a Jattirite 
as priest points to his Levitical origin. 2 

Thus we have traces in the history of three Levitical cities. 
Further, Deuteronomy itself recognizes patrimonial prop- 
erty on the part of the Levites; for it expressly speaks of 
this (xviii. 8 ) and sees in it nothing inconsistent with the 
fact that Levi had no portion or inheritance, i.e. no proper 
tribal lot. It seems tolerably obvious that if Deuteronomy 
regards the two things as consistent, there can be no reason 
why other parts of the Pentateuch should not do the same. 
In point of fact, the total area of the whole forty-eight cities 
would have amounted to less than sixteen miles. When we 
remember that the family of Aaron alone received thirteen 
out of the forty-eight, it will appear that the remaining 

1 On the text, see supra, pp. 266 f. 

2 On the whole subject, see supra, No. 20, p. 261, and passim. 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausens Prolegomena 303 

thirty-five did not form a very extensive territory for a 
whole tribe. Of the question of the diffusion of the Levites 
it is not necessary to speak here, for this was discussed at 
sufficient length in the article " Priests and Levites." 

On the other hand, one true point is made in the above 
extract. It is the case that at sundry periods of history some 
of the Levitical cities were not in Levitical possession. No 
doubt, in the confused period from the invasion to the con- 
solidation of the national power under the monarchy, much 
occurred of which we have no record. Probably some of the 
cities were not conquered in the first instance ; but it is also 
quite possible that, during the course of the struggles in the 
time of the Judges, some cities may have changed hands. 
That the law was ever carried out in its entirety does not 
seem likely : that it was put into operation to some extent ap- 
pears to be beyond dispute. The quantum of disobedience 
must remain uncertain, because our data are insufficient; but 
yet there is one other consideration to which attention should 
be drawn in this connection — I mean the evidence that some 
of these places were centers of worship. The great high place 
at Gibeon provides a ready example (1 Kings iii. 4). It 
can scarcely be supposed by anybody that this was unserved 
by priests. It is not necessary to discuss the Levitical char- 
acter of the priesthood once more: that was fully considered 
in the article " Priests and Levites," to which reference has 
already been made so often. 

On the other hand, Wellhausen's conjecture that all the 
Levitical cities were ancient sanctuaries (p. 162) suggests 
two more probable conjectures. One is that in some cases 
such cities might have been assigned to the Levites in the 
hope that members of the tribe which was most intimately 
associated with the worship of Israel's God would prove the 



304 Pentateuchal Studies 

most efficient guardians of the purity of religion in towns 
where the ancient associations rendered it particularly liable 
to danger. The other is that at times when confused political 
circumstances made the lawful pilgrimage difficult or impos- 
sible it would be just these very Levites who as hereditary 
priests would feel the strongest temptation to practise their 
professional craft at local centers. But it must be realized 
that these are mere conjectures, and that the paucity of our 
materials makes it impossible to speak with any certainty on 
such points. 

To return to our analysis of Wellhausen's theories. He 
writes : — 

" . . . . it [i.e. the execution of the law. H. M. W.] was not in 
truth within the power of man, and cannot be seriously demanded 
in the Priestly Code itself, which contemplates a purely ideal 
Israel, with ideal boundaries, and leaves the sober reality so far 
out of sight that on archaeological grounds it never once so much 
as mentions Jerusalem, the historical capital of the priests " 
(p. 160). 

Xow here we have another piece of confused thinking. 
Wellhausen has failed to understand the difference between a 
priestly city (in which priests have certain special rights of 
property) and a city in which priests happen to dwell. There 
are Jewish priests to-day in, e.g., London, Paris, New York. 
Some, of them may even own houses, etc., in these places; 
but that does not make these cities priestly cities. And so 
it was with Jerusalem. It was undoubtedly the religious 
capital, but it never was a priestly city in the same sense as. 
e.g., Anathoth. This, therefore, provides no argument what- 
ever in favor of the Wellhausen theory. 

Lastly, Wellhausen thinks that " the immediate starting- 
point for this territorial donation to the Levites is per- 
haps to be sought in Ezekiel, in the picture of the future 



Fifth Chapter of Wellhausens Prolegomena 305 

Israel which he draws at the close of his book" (pp. 162 f.). 
And he proceeds to discuss the prophet's land scheme. Here 
Van Hoonacker's brilliant and convincing reply must be 
quoted : — ■ 

" Strictly we could ask .... whether Ezekiel did not found him- 
self on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. 
It is only too manifest that the division and apportionment of the 
territory as presented in ch. xlviii. of the prophet are scarcely in- 
spired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced 
character of ideal vision ; and as ' no fancy is pure fancy ' 1 we 
ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel's 
vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the taber- 
nacle explain themselves in the priestly code ; we may doubt 
whether the Levites, deprived of territory (Ezk. xliv. 28) and 
nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions de- 
scribed in Ezk. xlviii. explain themselves with equal facility. A 
camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not 
the country of Canaan. We need not stop there. It is in fact cer- 
tain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness 
of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, 
the means are appropriate to the end." 2 

Thus in this chapter, as elsewhere, Wellhausen's theories 
of historical reconstruction are seen to be of the most base- 
less and impossible character. 

X A quotation from Wellhausen ; see Prolegomena, p. 161. 
2 Sacerdoce levitique, pp. 425 f . 



XXIII 
THE LEGISLATIONS OF ISRAEL AND BABYLONIA 

[A paper read before the Victoria Institute on March 15, 1909.] 

In the year 1902, M. de Morgan discovered a black diorite 
stele on which were inscribed " the judgments of righteous- 
ness which Hammurabi the mighty king confirmed." Some 
thirty-five sections had been erased, apparently with a view 
to engraving a fresh inscription on the portion of the monu- 
ment they occupied, but the rest of the Code was practically 
intact. While there are many points in the translation, 
history, and interpretation on which uncertainty must long 
prevail, we have sufficient materials to form some general 
conceptions of the legal civilization of the subjects of " the 
mighty king." 

The subject-matter of jural laws is human life in its social 
aspect. It deals with the acts and omissions of human beings 
in their relation to one another; and, as a necessary result, 
the influences that mold any given legislation are both mani- 
fold and diverse. Nowhere does the student realize more 
vividly that the roots of the present lie deep in the past; and, 
accordingly, the first task in taking a general view of the 
Babylonian code must be to distinguish the primitive ideas 
that Hammurabi and his contemporaries brought from a re- 
mote past. We must next consider the geographical and other 
conditions of their task, the means of which they could dis- 
pose, the nature of the problem with which they were faced, 
the state of mental development to which they had attained; 
and we shall then be in a position to form some conception 

306 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 307 

of their views and policy. In other words, we must glance 
successively at the Ideas the nation had inherited from its 
Infancy, at its Geographical Environment and Historical 
Circumstances, at the Conditions and Tasks of its Daily Life, 
and at the Quality and Development of its Intellect. Only 
when that is done can we hope to see something of its Soul. 
In the case of the Babylonian code, the occupations of the 
people and its history were almost entirely determined by the 
geog'raphy, and can, for the most part, be dealt with under 
that head. 

In dealing with the historical portion of our subject, noth- 
ing is possible, in the present condition of our knowledge, 
beyond a few generalities. The legal antecedents of the 
Code are too largely unknown, and it would be quite impossi- 
ble to attempt to separate the elements that are due to the 
Sumerians from those contributed by the Babylonians. But 
we have seven sections belonging to some Sumerian legisla- 
tion, and these are sufficient to show that the Code of Ham- 
murabi merely represents a particular stage in an orderly 
historical evolution. Thus we read in the Sumerian laws: 
" If a wife hates her husband, and has said, ' You are not 
my husband,' one shall throw her into the river." x This pen- 
alty of throwing into the river remains in the case of the 
undutiful wife of Hammurabi's Code, 2 though there the law 
is somewhat more elaborate, and testifies to more advanced 
legal reflection. Evidently the two enactments rest on the 
same theory of punishment. Again, the Sumerian laws pro- 
vide that, " if a husband has said to his wife, ' You are not 

1 Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, p. 42. 

2 " If she has not been economical but a goer about, has wasted 
her house, has belittled her husband, one shall throw that woman 
into the waters" (sect. 143). 



308 Pentateuchal Studies 

my wife/ he shall pay half a mina of silver." 1 Precisely the 
same idea of compensating the wife for a divorce reappears 
in the Code ; but there the amount is either a sum equal to 
the bride-price or, if there was no bride-price, one mina in 
the case of well-to-do persons, one-third of a mina in the case 
of a plebeian (sects. 138-140). The fundamental principle 
is identical, but social inequalities have led to some differen- 
tiation in detail. 

But if our present knowledge of Babylonian history ena- 
bles us to do little to trace the antecedents of the Code, the 
same cannot be said of the comparative method. A few exam- 
ples will show how this elucidates the provisions of the legis- 
lation, and illuminates their Vorgcschichte. 

" There is no system of recorded law," wrote Sir Henry 
Maine, " literally from China to Peru, which, when it first 
emerges into notice, is not seen to be entangled with religious 
ritual and observance." 2 The Code of Hammurabi, to a very 
great extent, belongs to a later stage of development than 
that contemplated in this dictum ; and this, by itself, is suffi- 
cient to mark it as a fairly mature system. Yet slight remains of 
the earlier state of affairs may be traced in provisions for or- 
deals (sects. 2, 132), and oaths as methods of proof (sects. 
20, 23, 103, 120, 206, etc.). In such cases this survival from 
ancient ideas has, however, been worked into the system to 
fulfil a definite purpose. There are parallels all the world 
over, but perhaps the best short explanation that can be quoted 
is to be found in a few paragraphs of the late Indian law- 
book known as " Narada." Here the principle underlying the 
supernatural methods of trials and the object of their reten- 
tion in relatively late times are very clearly brought out: — 

1 Op. cit., p. 42. 

2 Early Law and Custom, p. 75. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 309 

"28. Proof is said to be of two kinds, [human and divine. Hu- 
man proof consists of documentary and oral evidence. By divine 
proof is meant the ordeal by balance and the other (modes of 
divine test). 29. Where a transaction has taken place by day, in a 
village or town, or in the presence of witnesses, divine test is not 
applicable. 30. Divine test is applicable (where the transaction has 
taken place) in a solitary forest, at night, or in the interior of a 
house, and in cases of violence, or of denial of a deposit." 1 

On paragraph 29, Asahaya, a standard Indian commentator, 
remarks : " In the case of all those transactions which take 
place during daytime, eye- and ear-witnesses are present. Doc- 
umentary evidence, likewise, is generally available in such 
cases. Therefore, divine proofs should not be resorted to. 
Where a transaction is known to have taken place in the pres- 
ence of witnesses, divine proof is also not applicable." Simi- 
larly, on paragraph 30, he writes : " In all the places and 
occasions mentioned in this paragraph human proof is not 
applicable, wherefore divine test has to be resorted to." 

The sections of the Hammurabi Code conform to these 
principles. 

More important for our present subject are the conceptions 
of talion. sympathetic talion, and so on. The idea of talion 
is world-wide. The wrong-doer is to suffer precisely the 
same injury as he has inflicted. It belongs to primitive ideas ; 
and, as society advances, it is always mitigated, in whole or 
in part, by some system of pecuniary compensation. Very 
frequently, distinctions are drawn between the members of 
different classes, and for our ultimate purposes it is important 
to note that this is the case with Hammurabi. For instance, 
we read: — 

" If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye, one shall 
cause his eye to be lost. 

" If he has shattered a gentleman's limb, one shall shatter his 
limb. 

x Narada, Introduction, ii. 28-30. 



310 Pentateitchal Studies 

" If he lias caused a poor man to lose his eye or shattered a 
poor man's limb, he shall pay one mina of silver" (sects. 196-198). 

Such rules not only show us the principle of talion in full 
operation, they also point very clearly to the division of the 
people into well-marked social strata, and to the conception 
of justice that such divisions had fostered. But while there 
is nothing uncommon in these provisions, the same cannot 
be said of the provisions for slaying the child of a guilty or 
negligent parent for the parent's offense. For example: — 

" If a builder has built a house for a man, and has not made 
strong his work, and the house he built has fallen, and he has 
caused the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be 
put to death. 

" If he has caused the son of the owner of the house to die, one 
shall put to death the son of that builder" (sects. 229 ff.). 

These enactments are believed to be unique, and it will be 
necessary to return to them when we consider the mental 
element in the legislation. For the moment we are concerned 
with them only as showing that the principle of talion was 
retained to the fullest extent. 

Sympathetic talion is also much in evidence in the Code. 

The idea is sometimes that punishment should be inflicted on 

the offending member, and sometimes that the instrument of 

the offense should also be the instrument of the punishment. 

Numerous examples come from all over the world. One of 

those given by Post is worth quoting. A German forest 

ordinance of the year 1546 provides that anybody felling a 

tree shall have his right hand hewn off with the axe he used 

in committing the offense. 1 Here we have both branches of 

the theory exemplified simultaneously. But more frequently 

a legal rule illustrates one or other branch. Thus we find 

1 A. H. Post, Grundriss der Ethnologischen Jurisprudenz, vol. ii. 
p. 239, note 3. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 311 

Hammurabi ordaining, e.g., that the hands of a man who 
strikes his father shall be cut off (sect. 195), while the man 
who comes to extinguish a fire, and " lifts up his eyes to the 
property of the owner of the house, and takes the property 
of the owner of the house," is to be " thrown into that fire " 
(sect. 25). 

Other provisions that show the influence of early ideas are 
those relating to theft. In treating of the ordinary procedure 
in early societies all over the world, Dr. Post writes as fol- 
lows : — < 

" He in whose possession the stolen article is found is prima facie 
presumed to be the thief. But if he pleads that he had bought the 
article or had acquired it by some other honest means from 
another, he must name that other person and conduct the owner 
of the stolen property to him. The person so vouched can in turn 
name another person whom he vouches as his predecessor in title, 
and so the enquiry proceeds until it ends with somebody who can- 
not vouch a predecessor in title. This person is then regarded as 
the thief. This procedure shows many variations in detail." x 

Similarly ,in Narada we read that " where stolen goods are 
found with a man, he may be presumed to be the thief " 
(xiv. 18 ). 2 It will be observed that this outline is reproduced 
in sections 9 ff. of the Code. 

With regard to the punishments for theft, the Babylonian 
system conforms here also to well-known types. The early 
form of remedial procedure in cases of theft is private vio- 
lence. When society interposes to prevent self-redress or 
blood-feuds, it endeavors to bribe the aggrieved party not 
to take the law into his own hands. 

" In the infancy of society," writes Mr. Post, " it is an important 
object to the legislator to induce an injured person to have recourse 
to the public tribunals instead of righting himself, that is to say, 

x Op. cit., vol. ii. p. 586. 
2 Cp. vii. 4; Manu viii. 201. 



312 Pentateuchal Studies 

constituting himself both lawgiver and judge. That such was really 
the motive of the legislator we have historic evidence in the declar- 
ation of Rotharis, ruler of the Langobards, a.d. 643. He gives the 
relatives of the slain their election between the primitive vengeance 
for blood ( feud or vendetta ) , and a composition or pecuniary fine 
(wergeld or poena) to be recovered by action before the public 
tribunals. He says that he fixes a high fine in order to induce 
plaintiffs to forego their right of feud; and implies that he would 
gladly have abolished the right of feud or private war, but felt 
that it was too deeply rooted in the habits of his tribe to be ex- 
tirpated by legislation." 1 

It is probably in the light of such ideas as these that we 
ought to contrast the threefold restitution imposed by section 
106 on the agent who takes his principal's money with the 
tenfold restitution that is to be exacted from the dishonest 
shepherd by section 265. Probably the rule that concerns 
the shepherds had its first origin in a far earlier and less 
orderly state of society than that which was called upon to' 
decide on pecuniary transactions involving the relationship 
of principal and agent. On the other hand, it must be noted 
that this influence alone may be insufficient to account for all 
the penalties in cases of theft and the allied subjects. It ex- 
plains the severity of the punishments for theft and many of 
the penalties involving manifold restitution; but, when w r e 
read in section 107 that in the converse case the dishonest 
principal is to pay not a threefold but a sixfold penalty to 
his agent, we seem to see traces of a moral judgment on the 
relative heinousness of offenses by principals against agents 
and agents against principals. It must, however, be noted 
that this is a question of correct translation. 

In another department of law the Code exhibits the influ- 
ence of early ideas greatly weakened. The patria potestas, 
the absolute power of the head of the family over his chil- 
^n Gaius iii. 189 ff. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 313 

dren, has been greatly lessened and reduced by the time of 
Hammurabi. Yet there are sections (sects. 168 ff.) dealing 
with " cutting off from sonship " (a phrase as to the meaning 
of which it would be unwise to hazard a guess without knowl- 
edge of the original), and with the penalties for undutiful 
sons (sects. 192, 193, 195). There is, moreover, a section 
(sect. 7) enacting that " if a man has bought from the hand 
of a man's son, or of a man's slave, without witness or power 
of attorney, or has received the same on deposit, that man 
has acted the thief, he shall be put to death." The proprie- 
tary restrictions of the Roman filius familias in potestate are 
at once recalled by this section, though it must be confessed 
that this may only be due to the translation. The following 
passages from Narada may, however, be quoted : " In the 
same way, the transactions of a slave are declared invalid, 
unless they have been sanctioned by his master. A slave is 
not his own master. If a son has transacted any business 
without authorization from his father, it is also declared an 
invalid transaction. A slave and a son are equal in that respect " 
(i. 29 ff.). And again: "If a man buys from a slave who 
has not been authorized (to sell) by his master, or from a 
rogue, or in secret, or at a very low price, or at an improper 
time, he is as guilty as the seller" (vii. 3). 

Turning now to the geographical influence, we may note 
that we are dealing with a country of great rivers. Hence it 
is natural to find rules which are readily paralleled from the 
river civilization of India. " For a long passage," says 
Manu, " the boat hire must be proportioned to the places and 
time." And he adds a remark which is characteristic of the 
geography of his country: "Know that this (rule refers) to 
(passages along) the banks of rivers ; at sea there is no 
settled (freight)" (viii. 406). Hammurabi proportions his 



314 Pentateuchal Studies 

boat-hire to the times and class of vessel. Characteristically 
enough he fixes the exact daily amount (sects. 275-277). 
Again, when Hammurabi provides that where a boatman has 
been careless and grounded the ship, or has caused what is 
in her to be lost, he shall render back the ship which he has 
grounded and whatever in her he has caused to be lost (sect. 
237), we may compare Manu : "Whatever may be damaged 
in a boat by the fault of the boatmen, that shall be made 
good by the boatmen collectively (each paying) his share. 
This decision in suits (brought) by passengers (holds good 
only) in case the boatmen are culpably negligent on the wa- 
ter; in case of (an accident) caused by (the will of) the gods, 
no fine can be (inflicted on them)" (viii. 408-409). In this 
passage, " whatever " is referred by some commentators to 
" merchandise," by others to " luggage." 

The geography of the country must be held responsible for 
other provisions. 

"On Hammurabi's accession," says Mr. King, "he first devoted 
himself to the internal improvement of his territory. In the past 
both Babylon and Sippar had suffered from floods, and the recur- 
rence of these he sought to diminish by erecting dams and cutting 
canals." 1 

" It was an alluvial plain," Professor Sayce writes of the coun- 
try, " sloping towards the sea and inundated by the overflow of 
the two great rivers which ran through it. When cultivated it 
was exceedingly fertile, but cultivation implied a careful regulation 
of the overflow, as well as a constant attention to the embank- 
ments which kept out the waters, or to the canals which drained 
and watered the soil. 

"The inhabitants were, therefore, necessarily agriculturists. They 
were also irrigators and engineers, compelled to study how best 
to regulate the supply of water, to turn the pestiferous marsh 
into a fruitful field, and to confine the rivers and canals within 
their channel. Agriculture and engineering thus had their natural 
home in Babylonia, and originated in the character of the country 
itself. The neighborhood of the sea and the two great waterways 
1 Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 445. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 315 

which flanked the Babylonian plain further gave an impetus to 
trade. The one opened the road to the spice-bearing coasts of 
Southern Arabia and the more distant shores of Egypt; the other 
led to the highlands of Western Asia. From the first the Babylon- 
ians were merchants and sailors, as well as agriculturists. The 
' cry ' of the Chaldeans was ' in their ships.' The seaport of Eridu 
was one of the earliest of Babylonian cities, and a special form of 
boat took its name from the more inland town of Ur. While the 
population of the country devoted itself to agriculture the towns 
grew wealthy by the help of trade." x 

Thus the geography, combined with the policy of Hammu- 
rabi, must be held directly responsible for such provisions as 
those of sections 53-56, which deal with the liability of those 
who neglected to strengthen their bank of a canal with in- 
jurious results to other people's property, or had caused 
damage through careless manipulation of the water, and 
again for the special provisions protecting watering machines 
as well as other agricultural instruments (sects. 259 ff.). 
Special rules of this latter type are not at all uncommon, 2 and 
need no explanation. It need scarcely be added that the 
Code testifies clearly to trie nature of the products of the 
country in which it originated — corn, sesame, dates, etc. In- 
directly the geography must also be held responsible for the 
rules necessitated by the great commercial and economic de- 
velopment, and for the history which resulted in so great a 
royal power. But before passing to that branch of the sub- 
ject something may be said about the land laws and certain 
other topics that may conveniently be disposed of at the same 
time. 

Where agricultural land is leased for payments in kind, it 
becomes to the landlord's interest to compel the cultivator to 
do his duty in tilling the land energetically by forcing him to 
pay what the land can be made to bear, even if he has not in 

1 Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 8ff. 

2 See Post, Grundriss, vol. ii. pp. 421^123. 



316 Pentateuchal Studies 

fact cultivated it. The Code contains provisions to this effect 
(sects. 42 ff.), which again find a singularly close parallel in 
India — this time from Apastamba : " If a person who has 
taken (a lease of) land (for cultivation) does not exert him- 
self, and hence (the land) bears no crop, he shall, if he is 
rich, be made to pay (to the owner of the land the value of 
the crop) that ought to have grown" (ii. 11. 28. 1). On this 
Biihler writes : " This Sutra shows that the system of leas- 
ing land against a certain share of the crops, which now pre- 
vails generally in Native States, and is not uncommon in 
private contracts on British Territory [i.e. in India. H. M. 
W.], was in force in Apastamba's times." 1 

Like all other ancient legislators who were concerned with 
peasant landholders, Hammurabi had to face the question of 
giving some relief to the poor peasants who had mortgaged 
their holdings and were prevented by bad seasons from meet- 
ing their obligations. The first section which deals with this 
(sect. 48) is so humane that it should be quoted in extenso: 
" If a man has a debt upon him and a thunderstorm ravaged 
his field or carried away the produce, or if the corn has not 
grown through lack of water, in that year he shall not return 
corn to the creditor, he shall alter his tablet. Further, he 
shall not give interest for that year." 

The following sections (sects. 49-52) appear to be con- 
ceived in a similar spirit, and to provide relief for those who 
handed over their fields to their creditors for cultivation. So 
far as an opinion can be formed, they seem to embody well- 
devised and equitable rules for the protection of the borrower 
from oppression by the usurer. 

But if Babylonia was a land of rivers and tilth, it was also 
a country of pastures and live stock. Hence the Code con- 
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii. p. 166. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 317 

tains provisions for the remuneration of herdsmen, for their 
responsibility for the protection of their charges, and for. their 
liability for injury inflicted by them on the property of others. 
Owing to the similarity of conditions, we once more find ad- 
mirable parallels to all these in the Indian books. 

Thus with section 261 1 we may compare Narada vi. 10 : 
" For (tending) a hundred cows, (a heifer shall be given to 
the herdsman) as wages every year; for (tending) two hun- 
dred (cows), a milch cow (shall be given to him annually), 
and he shall be allowed to milk (all the cows) every eighth 
day." 

Similarly, when we read the sections relating to the lia- 
bility of shepherds, 2 we are reminded of Indian provisions. 
Thus Manu writes : — 

"During the day the responsibility for the safety (of the cattle 
rests) on the herdsman, during the night on the owner, (provided 
they are) in his house; (if it be) otherwise, the herdsman will be 
responsible (for them also during the night). . . . 

" The herdsman alone shall make good (the loss of a beast) 
strayed, destroyed by worms, killed by dogs or (by falling) into a 
pit, if he did not duly exert himself (to prevent it). 

"But for (an animal) stolen by thieves, though he raised an 
alarm, the herdsman shall not pay, provided he gives notice to 
his master at the proper place and time. 

" If cattle die, let him carry to his master their ears, skin, tails, 
bladders, tendons, and yellow concrete bile, and let him point out 
their particular marks. 

" But if goats or sheep are surrounded by wolves and the herds- 
man does not hasten (to their assistance), he shall be responsible 
for any (animal) which a wolf may attack and kill. 

"But if they, kept in (proper) order, graze together in the forest, 

1 Section 261 runs as follows : " If a man has hired a herdsman 
for the cows: or a shepherd for the sheep, he shall give him eight 
Gur of corn per year." 

2 Sections 263-267, especially the last two, providing that where 
animals are lost through an act of God, or a lion's attack, the loss 
is to fall on the owner, while the shepherd is liable for losses 
through negligence. 



318 Pentateuchal Studies 

and a wolf, suddenly jumping on one of them, kills it, the herds- 
man shall bear in that case no responsibility" (viii. 230, 232-236). x 

And with sections 263, 267, we may also compare Apas- 
tamba ii. 11. 28. 6: "If (a herdsman) who has taken cattle 
under his care, allows them to perish, or loses (them by 
theft, through his negligence), he shall replace them (or pay 
their value) to the owners." 

Rules of this kind spring from the very nature of the con- 
tract between an owner and his shepherd. The whole object 
of employing a shepherd is to have a guardian of the sheep 
who shall be responsible for their safe custody. Accordingly 
he must always be liable for loss caused through his own 
negligence or want of skill. On the other hand, in cases 
where loss occurs through some cause that is beyond his con- 
trol and that could not have been prevented through any ex- 
ercise of care or skill, e.g., vis major (Hammurabi's lion), 
act of God, inevitable accident, the principle res domino perit 
necessarily finds application in the absence of agreement to 
the contrary. 

The kindred question of the liability for damage done by 
sheep is dealt with by Hammurabi in sections 57 ff., making 
the shepherd responsible for the depredations of his sheep 
on green corn. An Indian parallel from Gautama may be 
cited : — 

" If damage is done by cattle, the responsibility falls on the 
owner. But if (the cattle) were attended by a herdsman (it falls) 
on the latter. (If the damage was done) in an unenclosed field 
near the road (the responsibility falls) on the herdsman and on 
the owner of the field. Five mashas (is the fine to be paid) for 
(damage done by) a cow, six for a camel or a donkey, ten for a 
horse or a buffalo, two for each goat or sheep. If all is destroyed 
(the value of) the whole crop (must be paid and a fine in addi- 
tion)" (xii. 19-26 ).- 

1 See, further, Narada vi. 11-17. 

2 Cf., also, Manu viii. 239-241. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 319 

It will be seen that, with some differences of detail, the 
principle is substantially the same. 

Another department of the law may be traced to the influ- 
ence of the geographical situation of the people and its con- 
sequent economic development acting on marriage customs 
that in themselves are not exceptional. Gifts by bridegrooms 
to the parent and relations of the bride, and dowries given 
by the father on his daughter's marriage are common to 
many races. In Babylonia, owing to the general wealth, 
these gifts became of great importance and developed a num- 
ber of rules relating to their disposition in various events. 
For example, the marriage portion, being the wife's, will gen- 
erally follow her in the event of a dissolution (sects. 138, 142, 
176, etc.). It descends to her children, not to the children of 
another wife, and so on (sects. 167, 173, 174, etc.). 1 These 
rules call for no more than passing mention here. 

The geography of Babylonia was probably the chief influ- 
ence to which the formation of a strong centralized monarchy 
may be attributed ; and, accordingly, it will be in place at 
this stage to notice the group of sections dealing with certain 
royal officials called by Mr. Johns gangers and constables. 
The property which such officials enjoyed by virtue of their 
office is rendered inalienable (sects. 35-38). On the other 
hand, they are subjected to special provisions to secure their 
efficient attendance to their duties. The details are not at 
present clear in translation ; but the general purport of the 
rules appears sufficiently. Hammurabi enacts that, for the 
benefit of the state, these men shall enjoy special rights and be 
subject to special duties. Clearly he protects their property 
in order to provide for efficient public service. Similarly the 

*An excellent note on these, by Professor E. Cuq, will be found 
at the end of Father V. Scheil's La Loi de Hammourabi. 



320 Pentateuchal Studies 

law at present in force in this country contains special pro- 
visions as to the effect of a bankruptcy on the pay of an officer 
of the army or navy or a civil servant. 

The marriage laws give effect to two or three principles. 
Generally the marriage tie is protected, but where the husband 
has been taken in captivity, poverty is recognized as justifying 
the wife in entering the house of another (sect. 134). The 
wife is expected to be economical, attend to her household, 
and be dutiful to her husband (sects. 142 ff.). The man is 
regarded as having a right to obtain children. Various pro- 
visions regulate divorce, and would apparently act in general 
as checks on the exercise of that power. 

Of this and many departments of the law it may be said 
generally that there is evidence of that common sense without 
which no code of this length could possible have been devised 
for a people of the material civilization of the Babylonians, 
and that they further testify to the well-developed economic 
instincts of the people. Ethical considerations play only a 
very small part. 

We have seen something of the legal machinery that was 
inherited by the contemporaries of Hammurabi from far more 
primitive times. It is necessary, also, to notice the machinery 
of a modern type and the use that was made of it. The gen- 
eral diffusion of writing made the duly authenticated deed 
the best proof of commercial transactions. We find provis- 
ions in the Code which appear to be inspired by the same mo- 
tive as the English Statute of Frauds. 1 It was, no doubt, 
" for prevention of many fraudulent practices," that the 
Babylonian legislator enacted (sects. 104 ff.) that "a sealed 
memorandum of the money he has given to the merchant " 
should be required in certain disputes between " merchants " 
*29 Car. II. c. 3. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 321 

and " agents," and that the depositor who effects his deposit 
without " witness and bonds " should have no remedy if the 
depositary denied his title (sects. 122 ff.). The legal states- 
manship of such provisions is beyond question. 

Other legal tools of ancient Babylonia find analogies in 
modern English law. For example, a father making a settle- 
ment of a field or a garden on a " lady, a votary or a vowed 
woman," could, if he so desired, give her an absolute testa- 
mentary power over the property, to the exclusion of her 
brothers (sect. 179). On the other hand, he might refuse to 
do this. In that case she had only a life interest without 
power of alienation, and even this interest was subject to a 
right on the part of her brothers to undertake the cultivation 
of the property and pay her corn, oil, and wool, according to 
the value of her share. Indeed, speaking generally, it may 
be said that the rules of succession and settlements are such 
as usually spring up in communities in an advanced economic 
condition. 

In another branch of the law the machinery adopted is o£ 
a less modern and permanent type. The Babylonian legislator 
appears to have sought to prevent disputes as to the remuner- 
ation for services rendered by fixing the amount by statute, 
and accordingly we find the fees for the work of doctors, 
veterinary surgeons, builders, etc. These rules are usually 
flanked by others, providing more or less savage punishment 
in the event of the contractor's showing want of care or skill. 
Thus, in the case of certain unsuccessful operations, the doc- 
tor is to lose his hands (sect. 218) if his patient is a " gentle- 
man." This doctrine of the legal responsibility of a physician 
for failure may be paralleled from India. Thus we read in 
Vishnu: "Also, a physician who adopts a wrong method of 
cure in the case of a patient of high rank (such as a relative 



322 Pentateuchal Studies 

of the king's) [shall pay the highest amercement] ; the second 
amercement in the case of another patient ; the lowest amerce- 
ment in the case of an animal" (v. 175-177). Similarly 
Manu says: "All physicians who treat (their patients) 
wrongly (shall pay) a fine; in the case of animals, the first 
(or lowest) ; in the case of human beings, the middlemost 
(amercement)" (ix. 284). An Indian commentator on this 
latter passage adds : " But this refers to cases when death 
is not (the result of the wrong treatment) ; for if that is the 
case the punishment is greater." It is interesting to note 
the gradation of ranks, leading in India, as in Babylonia, to 
differential treatment of the physician's failure. Want of 
skill or success is more heinous when the victim is great than 
when he is little. 

Of the intellectual element in the law we have already seen 
something, but an example may be taken of the way in which 
a principle relating to property is worked out. We may se- 
lect for this purpose the aphorism res domino perit — if prop- 
erty is destroyed, the loss falls on the owner. In the simplest 
cases the principle is so obvious that no question can possi- 
bly arise. If I accidentally drop my handkerchief into the 
fire, I am the only person on whom the loss can fall. The 
same holds good if my corn or my sheep are destroyed by a 
storm or a lion while in my custody. But not all the cases 
that may arise are as clear as these. For instance, A's field 
is being cultivated by B, who in return gives him a propor- 
tion of the produce. If the calamity occurs to that which re- 
mains in the field after A has received his proportion, what 
is to be done? Here Hammurabi rightly decides that the 
ownership is definitely fixed at the time of the receipt. There- 
fore, the produce remaining in the field had become B's, and 
B's only. Consequently it is on B alone that the loss must 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 323 

fall (sect. 45). If, on the other hand, A had not received his 
share, the two are joint owners, and the loss must be divided 
''according to the tenour of their contract" (sect. 46), i.e. 
proportionately, as Mr. Pinches renders it. In each case the 
loss falls on the owner. Again, suppose that A's slave dies 
of purely natural causes while in the house of B, who has 
lawfully distrained on him. Here again res domino perit; 
the owner must bear the loss (sect. 115). Or, if B has hired 
A's ox, and " God has struck it, and it has died," or again, in 
the case already cited, if, by the act of God or vis major, A's 
sheep have perished while under the charge of C, a shepherd, 
the rule is the same (sects. 249, 266). On the other hand, 
in some cases of purchase there was a right of rescission 
within a given time (sect. 278), and here the principle is sub- 
ject to this rule. The adoption and application of principles 
of this sort are necessary incidents of the growth to maturity 
of any legal system, but they show the sound sense and grasp 
that characterize certain portions of the Babylonian code. 

On the other hand, nothing very satisfactory can be said 
of the general treatment of the intellectual elements in of- 
fenses. The limits of Babylonian reflection on the matter 
are only too clearly shown. The authors of the Code are 
usually willing to excuse anybody who acted under com- 
pulsion or under a misapprehension induced by another's 
fraud. For example, the agent who, while on a journey, is 
robbed by an enemy, is recognized as innocent (sect. 193), and 
so is the trader who has been deceived into wronging the 
owner of a slave (sect. 227). They go further, and recog- 
nize that the owner of a vicious ox should be punished only 
if he had reason to know that the animal was vicious, and 
had failed to take proper precautions to prevent its inflicting 
injury (sects. 250-252). They even realize that in a fight a 



324 Pentateuchal Studies 

blow may be given that has unexpectedly grave results (sects. 
206-208), and that in such a case the mental element must 
be taken into consideration in determining what the legal 
consequences of the action should be. Once more, in esti- 
mating a wife's conduct, they consider her character as evi- 
denced by her past, and also her husband's treatment of her 
(sects. 42fi\). But further than this they do not go. They 
do not realize in its entirety the maxim Non est reus nisi mens 
sit rea. Indeed, they often fall immeasurably below it. The 
builder who does his work carelessly or unskilfully or dis- 
honestly, forfeits his life if the house kills the owner (sect. 
229), though he certainly had no murderous intent. Still 
worse, if the collapse of the building results in the death of 
the owner's son, the innocent son of the builder is to be 
killed. In this case, at any rate, both mental element and 
overt act are lacking. No doubt much must be attributed to 
the primitive condition of legal reflection in Hammurabi's 
Babylonia. Yet these provisions are more barbarously un- 
just than any known legal rule of any primitive people. And 
so we come to the last branch of the Babylonian section of 
our inquiry with the question, What has the Code to tell us 
of the character and ideals either of its framers or of the 
nation for which it was intended? We have seen that it is 
the work of men whose intellectual powers are in some re- 
spects worthy of admiration; can the same be said of their 
legislative ideas? 

The answer, however reluctantly given, must in the main 
be unfavorable. 

In the first place, the Code is on the whole of a savage 
type. It is true that the comparative material fully explains 
the origin of the barbarous penalties that we have encoun- 
tered ; but it also does much to increase our wonder at finding 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 325 

that penalties so cruel should have been retained in such 
numbers at so advanced a stage of material civilization. The 
extreme limit is reached when death is inflicted, by way of 
talion, not on the person actually responsible for the offense 
it is sought to prevent, but on his innocent child. Many legis- 
lators have punished the innocent with the guilty, or the inno- 
cent in mistake for the guilty; it was reserved for the Baby- 
lonians or those from whom they may have derived these 
rules to undertake knowingly and of set intent to punish the 
innocent in lieu of the guilty. No doubt the punishment was 
usually or always commuted. Not all offenders can have had 
children on whom could be inflicted the punishment prescribed 
by " the judgments of righteousness which Hammurabi the 
mighty king confirmed and caused the land to take a sure 
guidance and a gracious rule." Nevertheless, the sections 
remain on record to show the ideas of justice that were prev- 
alent in ancient Babylonia and to illustrate the character of 
the people. And this savagery reappears in one penalty after 
another. Nowhere is the operation of the principle of talion 
limited to any degree. 

Secondly, for good or for evil, the protection of property 
is the paramount object of the Code, to the exclusion of almost 
all other ideas. To some extent this is inevitable, and not at 
all remarkable. Every legal system designed for a people 
that has attained to some degree of economic maturity must 
necessarily be concerned with that which constitutes the main 
subject-matter of their daily occupations. But in Hammu- 
rabi's Code the interest in property leads to some regrettable 
principles. The penalties for theft are, in some cases, alto- 
gether excessive, as may be seen by comparison with the 
rules of the Romans — a people who were certainly not con- 
spicuous for gentleness. When the Romans adopted mani- 



326 Pentatenchal Studies 

fold restitution, their maximum penalty was fourfold. Ham- 
murabi runs up to a thirtyfold payment. On the other hand, 
he recognizes the duty of the government to secure public 
safety. In the prologue to the Code, he boasts of himself as 
" the wise, the active one, who has captured the robbers' 
hiding-places, sheltered the people of Malka in (their) mis- 
fortune, caused their seats to be founded in abundance " ; 
and to his credit be it said that his ideas of the duty of a 
government in this respect found legislative expression in 
sections 23 if., which provide that where a man is robbed by. 
a brigand, " the city and governor in whose land and dis- 
trict the brigandage took place shall render back to him " 
compensation if the brigand has not been caught. A similar 
view is found in India. 1 

Moreover, in two instances, other considerations are al- 
lowed to modify the claims of property: the peasant whose 
power of payment is destroyed by natural misfortunes enjoys 
the benefit of protection against the demands of the money- 
lender (sect. 48), and again the wife and child of a debtor 
recover their liberty after only three years' service to the 
creditor (sect. 117). 

Thirdly, it may fairly be said that Hammurabi expects 
every man to do 1 his duty, and holds that he ought to be 
properly remunerated for his work. With this object, we find 
numerous provisions dealing with the remuneration of va- 
rious craftsmen and inflicting punishment for unsatisfactory 
work. A similar idea appears in the provisions that are in- 
spired by the Babylonian theory of wifely duty. And this 
bring-s us to a fourth characteristic of the Code, its treatment 
of various trades and crafts. Hammurabi believed that he 
could best regulate by legislation matters that might have 
1 See Gautama x. 46-47 : Vishnu iii. 66-67. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 327 

been left to contract or judicial discretion. Probably he knew 
the circumstances of his own age and country best, and was 
right in taking this course. At any rate, we have no mater- 
ials which would justify us in blaming the grandmotherliness 
of his legislation. 

Fifthly, the "Babylonian conception of justice, like that of 
the Indian law-books, is fundamentally warped by the caste 
system. Throughout there is one law for the rich, another 
for the poor. The dignity of man was unknown in Baby- 
lonia. 

It is probable, too, that the provision for drowning a wine 
merchant who makes the price of wine less than that of corn 
(sect. 108), though it sounds a little strange to our ears, is 
really a temperance enactment which should be noted with 
approval. 

The highest ideals of the Code may be summed up very 
briefly. Hammurabi held that it was the duty of the " shep- 
herd of the people " to make them dwell safely and prosper- 
ously. His ethics, his morality, his theory of legislation, in 
so far as they are not merely inherited from past ages, are 
alike economic. 

On the other hand, it would appear that he did give his 
people strong and certain rule, with its attendant benefits ; 
and it must be remembered that even inferior laws, if en- 
forced rigorously and impartially, are greatly preferable in 
their practical consequences to a legislation that is not ap- 
plied strongly and uniformly, even if the latter be superior 
on paper. 

It is a misfortune for the posthumous reputation of the 
Babylonian king, that in our days, circumstances necessitate 
the comparison of his famous statute with the noblest monu- 
ment of legislative idealism that history has produced. The 



328 Pentateuchal Studies 

interest that is felt in Hammurabi's Code by the general pub- 
lic is largely due to the supposed possibility that it may have 
exercised some considerable influence on the law of Israel. 
The Babylonian system could far better stand a comparison 
with the law-books of India, the law of Imperial Rome, or 
the law of Englarfd in, say, the eighteenth century, than with 
the work of him whose labors were directed to teaching that 
" man doth not live by bread only, but by all that cometh out 
of the mouth of the Lord doth man live" (Deut. viii. 3). 

In dealing with the second division of my subject, it is not 
my intention to answer those who maintain that Hebrew law 
was borrowed from or greatly influenced by the Babylonian 
system. Such a theory is so absolutely preposterous on the 
face of the legislations, that no comparative jurist could be 
found to defend it, and I should not be justified in wasting 
the time of this Society in discussions of this nature. 1 A word 
may, however, be given to the patriarchal customs evidenced 
by the book of Genesis. It is sometimes said that the patri- 
archs lived under the Code of Hammurabi. This result is 
attained by the familiar method of emphasizing such portions 
of the evidence as appear to support the theory while leaving 
out of account all the other relevant facts. For example, the 
Hebrew patriarch, like the Roman pater familias, exercised 
absolute powers of life and death over the members of his 
household, including his children and his daughters-in-law. 
The Code of Hammurabi, on the other hand, shows us a 
society in which the paternal power had long since been re- 
duced to more moderate dimensions. There can, therefore, 
be no question of the Code's being the law of the patriarchs. 
On the other hand, there are resemblances between the early^ 

1 For a full consideration of the topic, see my article " Law in 
the Old Testament " in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary. 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 329 

Hebrew customs and the Babylonian law; and it is not im- 
possible that these are due either to community of origin or 
to direct influence. 

The comparison I have to suggest will, I trust, be more 
fruitful of historical profit than any speculations of influence 
which are foredoomed to sterility. I purpose to take up the 
factors and influences in the formation of the legislation that 
we have seen at work in Babylonia, and show how they oper- 
ated in ancient Israel. But this process can only be repeated 
with a necessary difference. While in the older system we 
had only to note the uncontrolled operation of such ideas as 
the conception of talion, in the younger we should continually 
have to stop to examine the checks and restraints that were 
imposed on them by the theory of legislation that inspires the 
work throughout. 

It is for this reason that, before embarking on the consider- 
ation of the various formative influences that we have seen 
at work in the Code of Hammurabi, we must consider the 
distinctive currents of thought that dominate the whole. 
The historical student of, say, English legislation in the 
nineteenth century, is compelled to take into account the 
great intellectual forces that molded its history — such as 
utilitarianism, laissez {aire, collectivism. The nearest analogy 
in the case of Hammurabi (if there be one) appears to be 
the theory that extensive state regulation is for the benefit of 
the community, and the main interest lies in the political, so- 
cial, and economic conditions — in the external elements of 
human life. In the case of the Pentateuchal legislation the 
exact opposite is true. Here the internal and spiritual com- 
pel our fascinated gaze, and the external is of interest mainly 
in so far as it manifests the influence of the former. The 
greatness of Israel lies in his soul. 



330 PentateucJial Studies 

The jural laws contained in the Mosaic legislation form a 
portion of a larger corpus which was given to the Hebrew 
tribes by the God with whom, at the period, they entered into 
a special relation. By an act that is unparalleled in history 
a God took to himself a people by means of a sworn agree- 
ment. Some words that are fundamental for our purpose 
must be quoted from the offer : " Now, therefore, if ye will 
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall 
be a peculiar treasure to me from among all peoples : for all 
the earth is mine ; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of 
priests and a holy nation" (Ex. xix. 5fL). The views here 
expressed dominate the legislation. Holiness — the correla- 
tive holiness to which the Israelites must attain because the 
Lord their God is holy (Lev. xix. 2) — embraces much that is 
not germane to our subject this afternoon, but it also covers 
the whole field of national and individual righteousness. The 
duty to God that is laid upon the Israelites in these words is 
a duty that has practical consequences in every phase of so- 
cial life. ' I have already quoted a sentence from Sir Henry 
Maine in which he speaks of the uniformity with which re- 
ligion and law are implicated in archaic legislations. There 
is a stage in human development where life is generally seen 
whole, and it is to this stage that the Pentateuch belongs. 
But no other legislation so takes up one department of man's 
life after another and impresses on them all the relationship 
of God and people. Perhaps nothing will so clearly bring 
out my meaning as a statement of some of the more funda- 
mental differences between the Pentateuchal legislation and 
the old Indian law-books which often provide excellent par- 
allels to it. Those to which I desire to draw particular atten- 
tion are as follows : The Indian law-books have no idea of 
national (as distinct from individual) righteousness — a con- 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 331 

ception that entered the world with the Mosaic legislation 
and has perhaps not made very much progress there since. 
There is no personal God: hence his personal interest in 
righteousness is lacking: hence, too, there can be no rela- 
tionship between God and people: and while there is a super- 
natural element in the contemplated results of human actions 
there is nothing that can in the slightest degree compare with 
the Personal Divine intervention that is so often promised 
in the Pentateuchal laws. 1 The caste system, like Hammu- 
rabi's class system, leads to distinctions that are always in- 
equitable. The conception of loving one's neighbor and one's 
sojourner as one's self are alike lacking. The systematic pro- 
visions for poor relief are absent, and the legislation is gen- 
erally on a lower ethical and moral level; while some of the 
penalties are distinguished by the most perverted and bar- 
barous cruelty. All these points are embraced in the special 
relationship of the One God and the peculiar treasure, with 
its resulting need for national and individual holiness. 

The primitive ideas of proof by oath or ordeal meet us 
again in Israel, as in Babylonia. After what has already 
been said, they need not detain us. Sympathetic talion only 
occurs once in the jural laws, though it holds a rather more 
prominent place in the precepts which have purely supernat- 
ural sanctions and are for that reason excluded from com- 
parison with Hammurabi. Talion occupies a somewhat more 
important position. I have elsewhere given my reasons ior 
thinking that it was always subject to composition except in 
the case of offenses involving capital punishment. 2 Be that 

'•E.g., "And if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? 
behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase; then I will 
command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall 
bring forth fruit for the three years" (Lev. xxv. 20 ff.). 

2 Studies in Biblical Law, chap. vi. 



332 Pentateuchal Studies 

as it may, it is instructive to note that the principle is care- 
fully controlled. In lieu of the penalties striking at innocent 
children, we read : " The fathers shall not be put to death for 
the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the 
fathers : every man shall be put to death for his own sin " 
(Deut. xxiv. 16) — a provision that was perhaps called forth 
by some legislation or custom that resembled Hammurabi's 
Code. Again, the principle of talion is here free from all 
class differentiations, which are repugnant to the spirit of 
the Mosaic law, whose only favorites are the weak and help- 
less. The principle of making manifold restitution for theft 
and in certain kindred offenses is found here, as in so many 
other ancient legislations : but the provisions are far more 
equitable and humane than those of Hammurabi. 

On the other hand, the laws relating to filial duty show 
how much nearer the age of Moses was to the days of unre- 
stricted paternal power than the age of Hammurabi, death 
being the penalty for striking a parent. It should, however, 
also be pointed out that the religious element enters into the 
conception, filial duty being regarded as a constituent in 
holiness. 

In dealing with the Hebrew system we have to assign far 
more weight to history, and far less to geography, than in 
the Babylonian. The Hebrew tribes and their customs had 
a more varied past to look back upon than their Babylonian 
kinsmen. They had been nomads who for some time had 
sojourned in Canaan, and had even had some agricultural 
experience there. Thence they had migrated to Egypt, where 
they had again tilled the soil; and during the legislative 
period they were homeless wanderers in a desert, making 
ready to fall upon the land they yearned to possess. Without 
doubt the geographical influences must have been effective as 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 333 

well as varied; but, owing partly to the history and partly 
to the spiritual nature of the people, they do not exercise the 
predominating power that they are seen to possess in Baby- 
lonia. It will be well to treat the historical and geographical 
factors together. 

The land for which the legislation was intended was not a 
land of great rivers and fertile plains irrigated by canals, a 
land of sesame and dates, but " a land of hills and valleys 
that drank water of the rain of heaven" (Deut. xi. 11) ; "a 
land of brooks of water, of fountains, and depths springing 
forth in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley and 
vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of oil olives, 
and honey ; . . . a land whose stones are iron and out of whose 
hills thou mayest dig copper" (Deut. viii. 7-9). 

It is at once obvious that, in view of these natural features, 
we cannot look for any provisions relating to navigation or 
canals. It is equally obvious that the economic condition of 
the people was necessarily far more primitive than that of 
Babylonia. Hence we shall not find the well-developed sys- 
tem of trades and industry. There are a few rules dealing 
with the simplest cases of danger by or to cattle, but this is 
one of the departments of law that show the greatest simi- 
larity all the world over, and call for little comment. The 
real interest lies elsewhere — in the land laws, the slave laws, 
the tribal theory, and so on. These subjects we must now 
consider. 

The land laws are the product of many independent ideas 
and circumstances. Their consideration is in place here, be- 
cause the conditions of the problem and the opportunity for 
grappling with it show the influence of history with such 
singular clearness. First, such a system as that expounded 
in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus could be put forward 



334 Pentateuchal Studies 

only by one who had to work on what is so very rare in his- 
tory — a clean slate. In other words, the system of land ten- 
ure here laid down could be introduced in this way only by 
men who had no preexisting system to reckon with. Sec- 
ondly, there is (mutatis mutandis) a marked resemblance 
between the provisions of Leviticus and the system intro- 
duced in Egypt by Joseph (Gen. xlvii.). The land is the Lord's 
as it is Pharaoh's ; but the towns which are built on that land 
are not subject to the same theory or the same rules. Per- 
haps the explanation is that Joseph's measures had affected 
only those who gained their living by agriculture, i.e. the 
dwellers in the country. Thirdly, the system shows the enor- 
mous power that the conception of family solidarity pos- 
sessed in the Mosaic Age — a conception to which we shall 
have to return directly. And, fourthly, the enactment is in- 
spired and illuminated by the humanitarian and religious con- 
victions and ideals to which reference has already been made. 
In the economic sphere the contrast between Moses and 
Hammurabi is very marked. Taking human property first, we 
find that the Babylonian code is careful to guard the rights 
of slave owners, inflicting the death penalty on those who 
effectively aid runaway slaves (sects. 15-20). Contrast with 
this the Hebrew provisions : " Thou shalt not deliver unto his 
master a servant which is escaped from his master unto thee : 
with thee he shall dwell in the midst of thee, in the place 
which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh 
him best: thou shalt not oppress him" (Deut. xxiii. 15 ff.). 
It has been said with some truth that such provisions can 
more easily be enacted for a primitive community than at a 
more developed economic stage, but this is only a portion of 
the truth, and, if taken by itself, a very misleading portion. 
Economic circumstances may have been one of the conditions 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 335 

of the enactment of the rule (at any rate in its present form) : 
they could not provide its Motive. The difference between 
the two legislations here indicated is further emphasized by 
other provisions which secure the slave from mal-treatment 
by his master. Here it cannot be said that economic develop- 
ment necessitates or justifies the Babylonian code. In a word, 
where Hammurabi safeguards the rights of property, Moses 
for the first time in history protects the rights of humanity. 

The same holds good of the laws relating to loans, pledges, 
and poor relief. The legislator's object is always the same — 
to give practical effect to the doctrine of holiness which con- 
ceives the love of God's creatures as part of the Israelite's 
duty towards his God. 

We now come to two points that are best treated together 
— the strength of the family and tribal sentiment, and the 
weakness of the central administration. These appear to be 
due mainly to historical causes. In lieu of a people subjected 
to a strong centralized royal power with class distinctions, as 
were the Babylonians, history had made of the Hebrews a 
loose aggregation of undisciplined tribes unaccustomed to 
community of government, community of interest, or com- 
munity of action, knowing little of class distinctions, but 
profoundly imbued with family sentiment. The enormous 
strength of this feeling is to be seen in the influence it exer- 
cised on the law of succession to land. Here the possible 
effect of the Mosaic provisions led to a deputation of remon- 
strance, which pointed out that the possessions of heiresses 
might by their marriage become permanently vested in mem- 
bers of another tribe. It was accordingly enacted that in 
such cases they must espouse men of their own tribes, but 
the incident and the resulting law testify very vividly to the 
nature of the feeling. It is probably to this feeling of tribal 



336 Pentateuchal Studies 

separateness that we should attribute, in part at any rate, 
the great defect of the system — the failure to create a cen- 
tral government, which in those days could have been effected 
only by giving hereditary authority to one family. Probably 
no tribe would have submitted to a king who was chosen 
from some other tribe. Neither Moses nor Joshua appears 
to have had a son who was capable of ruling, and for the 
purposes of conquest a general was the only possible head of 
the people. Hence the defect was probably inevitable, but the 
weakness of the Hebrew system at this point is the measure 
of the strength of the Babylonian. The strong security for 
life and property, the compensation for robbery that Ham- 
murabi could afford, were out of the question for tribes with 
the historical antecedents of the Israelites. It should further 
be pointed out that the geographical character of the country, 
with its hills and valleys, and the survival of a large alien 
population filling in the interstices between the Hebrew set- 
tlements, must have made a centralized national power im- 
possible for long after the days of Moses. 

With regard to legal machinery everything is very primi- 
tive. With the single doubtful exception of the bill of divorce, 
the use of writing by private persons in the ordinary course 
of every-day life is never contemplated. Hence we find, as 
in so many primitive communities, that legal business was 
habitually transacted in the most public place possible, i.e. at 
the gate of the city, where the facts would necessarily become 
known to those who would be judges or witnesses or both in 
case of any further dispute. 

Turning now to the intellectual element in the law, we find 
that the state of legal reflection is also very primitive. A 
distinction between intentional murder and other forms of 
homicide is introduced for the first time, and in terms that 



The Legislations of Israel and Babylonia 337 

show clearly how difficult the conception was to contempo- 
raries of Moses. The same holds good of the law of rape. In 
the case of the savage ox the Hebrew legislator reaches the 
same stage of reflection as the Babylonian, but the undevel- 
oped state of thought is further attested by sacrificial provis- 
ions relating- to sins committed in ignorance and wilfully, 
which, however, strictly fall outside the scope of this paper. 
An act committed in ignorance may be a sin calling for atone- 
ment. On the other hand, no atonement can be made for 
wilful sins, and all sins are regarded as either ignorant or 
wilful. Such conceptions are the best witness to the extremely 
archaic nature of the legislation. 

To sum up the results of our survey: In dealing with any 
legal system it is necessary to separate the accidental from the 
essential, the universal from the characteristic. Every pro- 
gressive race necessarily passes through certain stages of 
growth. Every race will be affected by its environment, the 
surroundings of its life, the task that it must accomplish if 
it wishes to exist. Every progressive race will have to deal 
with certain problems that arise in all countries, the problems 
presented by those who kill or injure their neighbors, the 
ownership of property of various kinds, the commonest forms 
of social intercourse, and so on. In some of these cases 
all men of ordinary ability will reach substantially the same 
solutions ; but in others, the interplay of the various factors 
causes considerable variety. The study of the results is a 
task of some interest, but it must yield in fascination to the 
consideration of national and legislative ideals and national 
character. These two are inseparably linked, for there must 
be a more or less close correspondence between the character 
of the legislation and the sentiments of the governed. Legis- 
lative ideals of our own and past ages readily present them- 



338 Pentateuchal Studies 

selves to the mind in abounding number — to ev £fjv — with 
all that it meant to the Athenian ; the imperialism of Rome ; 
liberty, equality, fraternity ; utilitarianism ; hisses faire J lais- 
se.z passer; nationalism; and so on. If we interrogate the 
Babylonian code for its ideas, we learn that its watchword is 
" Security and Prosperity " ; if the Israelitish, we receive the 
answer " Holiness." 

The fate of the legislations has corresponded to their re- 
spective characters. A generation or two after the death of 
Hammurabi, no man could have doubted that his work had 
been successful; probably few would have said as much of 
the work of Moses at a corresponding interval after he was 
gathered to his fathers. " In those days there was no king 
in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own 
sight." But to-day the verdict is different. The Code of the 
Babylonian had its period of utility, and was then flung aside 
like an old shoe. For thousands of years its very name was 
forgotten, and to-day, when the bulk of it has been exhumed 
from the dust of centuries, we find that it is without value for 
our life or its problems. The people to whom it was given 
have passed away after doing their part for the material and 
intellectual advancement of the world, but without contrib- 
uting one iota to its higher life. The work of the Israelite, 
on the other hand, has given to his own people the quality 
of immortality and has borne mighty fruit among other peo- 
ples in both hemispheres ; so far as human vision can see, 
it will continue to do so in ever-growing measure; and 
throughout a century of generations, the work of him who 
was powerless to create machinery that could maintain public 
security in the national territory for a single generation has 
remained, for millions of people all over the world, par excel- 
lence the Law. 



INDEX I 
PRINCIPAL PASSAGES REFERRED TO 



i. 1-Ex. iii. 12 

i. 1-ii. 3 

ii. 

ii. 4a, 4b ft. 

ii. 14 

iii. 

iii. 18 

iv. 3 ff. 

iv.20 

iv. 25 f . 

iv. 26 

v. 28 

vii. 8, 9 

viii. lb 

viii. 20 ff. 

viii. 20 

ix. 20-27 



x. 19 
xii. 4b 
xii. 5 
xii. 6 
xii. 6b 
xii. 8 
xii. 10 ff. 
xiii. 6 
xiii. 7b 
xiii. 9 a/3 
xiii. lib 
xiii. 12a, b 
xiii. 12b/3 
xiii. 14 
xiv. 
xiv. 14, 18 

XV. 1 

xv. 2-4 
xvi. 
xvi. 1 
xvi. la 
xvi. 3 
xvi. 11 
xvi. 15, 16 
xvii. 
xvii. 1 
xvii. 7, 8 
xvii. 25 



5f. 



53 
207 

58 
207 

64,83 

58 

88 

86 

255 

59, 208 

55 f. 

208 f. 
59 
59 
86 
51 
59 
26 
27, 63, 83, 116, 123 

78,80 
73, 78, 80 
80 
26 
26 
68 

78,80 
26 
80 

78,80 
78 
80 
26 
83 
28 
75 

219 n. 
68 
78 
81 

78,81 
53, 55 f., 106 

78,81 

78,82 

59 

203 

82 



xviii. 13 
xix. 3 
xix. 29 

XX. 

xx. 4 

xx. 5 

xx. 7 

xx. 14, 18 

xxi. 1 

xxi. lb 

xxi. 2b, 3 

xxi. 4 

xxi. 8 ff . 

xxi. 8 

xxi. 9 

xxi. 14, 15, 18 

xxii. 19, ff., 26, 

xx ii. 1 

xxii. 2 

xxii. 10 

xxii. 11 

xxii. 14 

xxii. 15 

xxii. 16-18 

xxiii. 

xxiii. 1, 2 

xxiv. 

xxv. 7, 8, 9, 10 

xxv. 11 

xxv. 26 

xxvi. 24 

xxvi. 30 

xxvi. 34 

xxvii. 

xxvii. 2, 4 

xxvii. 35 ff. 

xxvii. 41 

xxvii. 46 

xxv iii. 13 f . 

xxviii. 21b 

xxviii. 22 

xxix. 22 

xxx. 18 

xxx. 18 a 8 

xxxi. 7 

xxxi. 32 



75 

86 

78,81 

68, 74 ff . 

74 

75 

28, 75 f . 

74 

30 

59,78 

78,82 

78 

67 f. 

86 

81 

82 

67, 86, 206 n. 

59 

19 

206 n 

55.59 

19,59 

55 

203 

78, 219 

78 

87 

78 

79 

22 f. 

203 

86 

22 f. 

22 f. 

24 

67 

23 f. 

22 

203 

59 

298 

86 

74 

75 

75 

219 



339 



340 Pentateuchal Studies 



GENESIS 








GENESIS 




xxxi. 50 




55, 59 


xlii.l 






72. 74 


xxxi. 54 




86 


xlii. 2 






43 n. 


xxxiii. 1-17 




59 


xlii. 3 






43 n., 85 


xxxiii. 5b. 10, 11 




59 


xlii. 4 






34f.,72 


xxxi v. 




70 


xlii. 5 






35, 43 n. 


xxxiv. 7 




28 


xlii. 6 






39,43??. 


xxxv. 5 




72 


xlii. 8 






34 


xxxr. 14 




86 


xlii. 13, 


14,18 


43 ;;. 


xxxr. 21 




28,72 


xlii. 22 






43 n . 45 


xxxv. 22 




45 n,, 71 


xlii. 25, 


27 




41 f. 


xxxv. 22a 




72 


xlii. 28 






44 ??., 60 


xxxv. 28 




22 f. 


xlii. 28a 






41 f. 


xxxvi. 31-39 




26 


xlii. 29 






72 


xxxvii. 


30, 4.; 


xlii. 30 






41 


xxxvii. 2, 3, 13, 14a 




35 


xlii. 32 






43«. 


xxxvii. 21 f. 




45 


xlii. 33 






41, 43 n. 


xxxvii. 25-27 




46 


xlii. 34 






43 n. 


xxxvii. 28a 




46 ff. 


xlii. 85 






41 f., 43 n. 


xxxvii. 28b 




46 


xlii. 36 






36,72 


xxxvii. 31 




206 n. 


xliii. 






45 n. 


xxxvii. 34 




35 


xliii. 2 






36 


xxxvii. 36 




46 ff. 


xliii. 3 






43 n. 


xxxviii. 21 




8S 


xliii. 6 






72 


xxxix 


301 


.. 60, 70 


xliii. 8 






36, 43 ??.. 72 


xxxix. 1 




30 f.. 46 


xliii. 9 






43 n. 


xxxix. 3, 5 




31 n. 


xliii. 11 






36,72 


xxxix. 6-19 




70 


xliii. 12 






41 f. 


xxxix. 7-20 




70 


xliii. 13. 


14, 


15 


43 n. 


xxxix. 10. 11, 12. 13 




31 ??. 


xliii. 16 






43 n. 


xxxix. 20 f . 




30 f. 


xliii. 17 






43 n. 


xxxix. 20 




31. 31 n. 


xliii. 18, 21 




41 f. 


xxxix. 22 




31 n. 


xiiii. 22, 


24,26 


43 n. 


xl. 




30 f. 


xliii. 28 






4An. 


xl. 1-7 




32 f. 


xliii. 30 






43 n. 


xl. 1 




31 


xliii. 34 






44??. 


xl. 2 




32 


xliv. 






219 


xl.3 




31. 31 ??, 


xliv. 8 






41 f. 


xl. 4 




32 


xliv. 11, 


14 




44 n. 


xl. 5 


31 


31 n., 32 


xliv. 18 ff. 




67 


xl. 7 




31 ff. 


xliv. 23. 26. 27 


44 n. 


xl. 15 


27 


f., 31, 46 


xlv. 






70 


xli. 4. 5. 8 




33 n. 


xlv. 3 






44 n. 


xli. 10 




32 


xlv. 4 






46 


xli. 11 




33 n. 


xlv. 5, 7, 


12, 


16, 19, 22, 


23 44 n. 


xli. 12 




34«. 


xlv. 25 






72 


xli. 13 




33 n. 


xlv. 27 






36, 44 ??, 


xli. 14 




31 


xlv. 28 






36,44;?., 72 


xli. 17, 19, 23. 27, 34. 


44 


34 n. 


xlvi. 1 






36, 86 


xli. 45 




33 


xlvi. la 






72 


xli. 46 




33, 34 n. 


xlvi. 2 






34, 36, 71 ff. 


xli. 51 




PA.n. 


xlvi. 5 






34,36 


xli. 50 


34 


v., :r.)n. 


xlvi. 5a 






72 f. 


xlii. 


41 f., 45 ??. 


xlvi. 5b 






71 ff. 



Index I 



311 



GENESIS 



EXODUS 



xlvi. 6 

xlvi. 6 f. 

xlvi. 8-27 

xlvi. 8 

xlvi. 12 

xlvi. 27 

xlvi. 29, 30 

xlvii. 

xlvii. 5-11 

xlvii. 7, 8, 9 

xlvii. 21 

xlvii. 27 

xlvii. 27b 

xlvii. 28 

xlvii. 29, 31 

xlviii. 2, 3 

xlviii. 2a, b 

xlviii. 7 

xlviii. 8 

xlviii. 9 

xlviii. 10 

xlviii. 11 

xlviii. 14 

xlviii. 15 

xlviii. 21 

xlix. 6 

xlix. 20 

xlix. 28 

xlix. 29, 30, 31, 32 

1.2 

1.13 

1.25 



36, 



34,3' 



EXODUS 



i. 5 
iii. 19 
iv. 14 
iv. 25 
vi. 3 
vi. 19 
viii. 22 
ix.26 
x. 21-23 
xii. 3 
xii. 6 
xii. 23 
xiii. Iff. 
xiii. 9 
xiv. 
xiv. 5 
xiv. 27 f . 
xvi. 4 
xvi. 32 
xvii. 



36 

43 f . 

44 

36 f. 

89 

73, 202 

37,72 

334 

44 

36 

39 n. 

36 

44 

44 

36 

37 

73 

67 

71 ff. 

37 

38 

34, 38, 71 ff. 

38,67 

57 

34, 38, 71 ff. 

289 

163 

34,38 

45 

38 

45 

71 

202 

75 

248, 250 

87 

148 

251 

201 

201 

201 

184 

206 

75 

193 

217 n. 

210 n. 

75 

209 

217 n. 

149 



xvii. 7 

xvii. 14 

xviii. 6 

xix.-xxiii. 

xix. 5 ff. 

xix. 22, 24 

xx. 14 

xx. 24-26 

xxi. ff. 

xxi., xxii. 

xxi. 

xxi. 5 

xxi. 6 

xxi. 13 

xxi. 14 

xxi. 15 

xxi. 17 

xxi. 20 

xxi. 37 (xxii. 1) 

xxii. 17 (18), 18 (19) 

xxii. 28 (29) 

xxiii. 

xxiii. 16, 19 

xxv.-xxxi. 

xxv. 10 

xxvi. -xl. 

xxvi. 18 

xxvi. 20, 22, 35 

xxvii. 2 

xxvii. 9 

xxvii. 11, 12, 13 

xxviii. 41 

xxix. 7 

xxix. 13-Num. xviii. 17 

xxix. 21 

xxx. 1-9 

xxx. 2, 3 

xxx. 15 

xxx. 30 

xxxii. 26-29 

xxxiii. 7 

xxxiv. 

10-26 

19 ff. 

22 



69 n 

149 

148 

180 

330 

230, 251 

190 

183 n., 188, 226, 300 

180 ff. 

8 

151 

186 n. 

148, 150 f., 186 n. 

180, 299 n., 300 

299 n., 300 

86 



xxxiv. 
xxxiv. 
xxxiv. 
xxxiv. 25 
xxxiv. 26 
xxxvi. 23 
xxxviii. 9-13 
xxxviii. 9 
xxxviii. 21 
xl. 13, 15 
xl. 24 



86, 190 
149 
145 
190 
296 

192 n, 

187^., 295 f. 

170 

202 

152 ff. 

152 f. 
153 
146 

152 ff. 

154 f. 

245 n. 
245 n., 246 n. 

206 

246 n. 
254 
146 
299 

246 rc. 

251 

148 

192 n„ 206 n. 

180 

193 

187 «.. 295 

206 n. 

187 n., 295 

152 f. 

155 f. 
152 
233 

246 n. 
152 



342 



Pentateuchal Studies 



LEYITICUS 



l.-XV. 


170 


i.-yii. 


186, 205 f. 


i. 


247 


i. 2 


187 


i. 7, 8, 11 


244 


ii. 3 


187 n. 


ii. 11-16 


295 


ii. 11 f . 


296 n. 


iii. 2 


248 


iv. 


188 


vii. 12-14 


187 n. 


vii. 34 


291 f. 


yii. 35 


246 n. 


viii. 30 


246 n. 


ix. 22 


257 


X. 


254 


x. 7 


246 n. 


x. 10 


278 


xiii. f. 


246 


-xiii. 2 


244 


xiii. 47 ff. 


247 


xiv. 


247 


xiv. 33-53 


247 


xiv. 54-57 


216 


xvi. 


170, 192 


xvi. 12 f . 


254 


xvii. 5 


293 n 


xviii.-xx. 


182, 189 


xvlii. 21 


165 


xviii. 29 


189 


xix. 


183, 189 f . 


xix. 2 


330 


xix. 5-8 


189 


xix. 14 


177 


xix. 20 


189 


XX. 


190 f., 334 


xx. 1-5 


165 


xx. 2-5 


190 


xx. 3 


189 


xx.9ff., 15 f., 27 


190 


xxi. 10, 12 


245 n. 


xxiii. 


192 n. 


xxiii. 10-20 


295 


xxiii. 27 


192 


xxiv. 5-8 


239 


xxv.-xxvi. 


180 


XXV. 


176, 233 


xxv. 20 ff. 


331 n. 


xxv. 43, 53 


176 


xxvi. 


177 f. 


xxvi. 42 


205 


xxvii. 26 f. 


193 


xxvii. 32 


298 f. 



XUMBEES 


i. 50-53 


233 


iii., iv. 


235 


iii. 3 


245 


iii. 4 


287 


iii. 6-10 


233 f. 


iii. 7, 8, 11 ff., 25 f. 


234 


iv. 


237 n., 243 


iv. 4 


234 


iv. 15 


235 


iv. 19 


243 


iv. 20 


239 


iv. 21-28 


235 


iv. 32 


243 


v. 9-10 


193, 294 


vi. 22-27 


256 f. 


vii. 


244 


vii. 5 ff. 


236 


viii. 


237 n., 244 


viii. 22 


235 n. 


viii. 26 


236 


xi. 5 


10 


xi. 22 


206 n. 


xi. 31-33 


10 


xiii. 2-16 


202 


xiii. 20 


296 n. 


xiv. 4 


167 


xiv. 16 


206 n. 


xiv. 33 


202 


xv. 3 ff. 


187 


xv. 17-21 


296??. 


xv. 20 


294 


xvi. 3 


254 


xvi. 9 f. 


237 


xvii. 5 (xvi. 40) 


254 f. 


xvii. 11 f. (xvi. 46) 


254 


xviii. 


294 f. 


xviii. 3 


234. 236, 239 


xviii. 4, 5, 6 


236 


xviii. 12 


294 f.,296 n. 


xviii. 13 


294 f. 


xviii. 15-18 


194 


xviii. 15 f. 


293 f. 


xviii. 17 


206 


xviii. 27 


295 


XX. 


69 


xx. 21 


75 


xxi. 9 


149 


xxi. 23 


75 


xxii. 4 


289 


xxii. 13 


75, 202 


xxii. 37 


75 


xxiii. 21 


163 


xxiv. 4, 16 


75 f. 



Index I 



343 



NUMBEKS 



DEUTERONOMY 



xxv. 2 f . 
xxviii.-xxix. 
xxix. 8 
xxix. 12 (13) 

XXX. 

xxxi. 
xxxi. 18 
xxxii. 13 
xxxiii. 
xxxiii. 26 
xxxv. 
xxxv. 9-34 
xxxv. 28 
xxxvi. 



229 
185 
192 

202 
182 

10 

10 
202 

10 

295 

288, 300 

180 

288 

11 



DEUTERONOMY 



i.23 
ii. 2-14 
iii. 27 
iii. 28 
v. 22 
viii. 2 
viii. 3 
viii. 7-9 
ix. 10 
ix.22 
x. 3 
x.6 
x.9 
x.22 
xi. 4 
xi. 5 
xi. 11 
xii. 

xii. 6, 11 
xxi. 20 
xiii. 6 
xiv. 22 ff. 
xiv. 23 
xv. 

xv. 12-18 
xv. 19 ff. 
xvi. 

xvi. 21 f . 
xvii. 1 
xvii. 11 
xvii. 12 
xvii. 14-20 
xvii. 14 
xvii. 15 f . 
xvii. 17 
xvii. 18 
xvii. 19 



202 
202 
202 
224 
289 
202 
328 
333 
289 
69 n. 
202 
251 
301 
202 
209, 210 n. 

210 n. 

333 

188, 194 

171 

292 

179 n. 
297 
298 
294 

186 w. 

194, 293 f . 

192 f ., 192 n. 

183 n. 
184 

217 n. 
255 

157 ff. 

157 f., 165 
158 f., 166 f. 

158 f. 

158 f., 166 

159 f., 166 



xv 

XV 

XV 
XV 
XV 

XV 
XV 
XV 
XV 

XV 
XV 

XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 
XX 



i. 20 

ii. 

ii. 1-8 

ii. 1 

ii. 3 

ii. 4 

ii. 6-8 

ii. 8 

ii. 10 

ii. 12, 13 

ii. 14 

.1-9 

.5 

.8b 

. 15 ff. 

. 18-21 

i. 5-12 

i. 30 

ii. 15 ff. 

v. 8 

v. 16 
xxvi. 

xxvi. 1-11 
xxvi. 1-10 
xxvi. 1 f. 
xxvi. 2, 12 f. 
xxvii. 9 
xxvii. 18 
xxviii. 34-41 
xxviii. 36 

xxviii. 69 (xxix. 1) 
xxix. 12 f . 
xxxi. 6, 7 
xxxi. 14 f . 
xxxi. 23 
xxxi. 30 
xxxii. 42 
xxxiii. 4 
xxxiii. 5 
xxxiii. 8-11 
xxxiii. 8 
xxxiii. 10 
xxxiv. 10 



159 f ., 166, 166 n. 

256 

255 

301 

291 ff. 

188 w., 294, 296 n. 

252 f ., 255 

256, 291, 302 

190 

294 

75 

252, 288 

253 

170 

220 n. 

86, 182 n. 

183 n. 

190 

334 

216, 217 n., 252, 253 

332 

297 

188 n„ 294 

296 n. 

294 

294 

257 

177 

214 n. 

163 f. 

210 

202 f. 

224 

171 

224 

289 

161 

169 

163 f. 

251 

69 n. 

253 

75 



JOSHUA 



ii. 15 

iii. 8, 13, 14, 17 

iv. 9 

v. 3ff. 

vii. 20 

viii. 35 

ix. 17 

x. 19 



149 

258 

258 

87 

75 

289 

268 

75 



344 



Pentateuchal Studies 



JOSHUA 



O U&J3. UA. 




II SAMUEL 




xiY. 15 
xviii. 1 
xviii. 7 
xviii. 24, 25, 28 


27 vi. 20 
262 viii. 17a 
258 viii. 18 
268 xiv. 14 




260 

260 
260 f. 
300 
262 
261, 302 
261 


xxi. 
xxi. 14 
xxi. 17 
xxii. 


301 xy. 12 
261 xx. 26 

269 xxiii. 38 
225 ff . 




xxii. 10 


228 






xxii. 17, 19 


229 


I KINGS 




xxii. 28 


225 i. 50 




146 




ii. 




260, 262 


JUDGES 


ii. 28 




301 


xiii. 19, 23 


ii. 27 
187 n - ii. 28 
289 ii. 34 
249 ii. 35 
258 iii. 4 
249 iY . 5 




273 


xiv. 8 
xvii. 7 


146, 299 n., 300 
262 


xvii. 13 




274 


xviii. 30 




303 

262 


I SAMUEL 


viii. 4 




268, 274 




viii. 14 




289 


i. 20 


107 viii. 56 ff. 




260 


ii. 12-16 


29! viii. 63 




248 


ii. 12 


292 viii. 64 




187 n. 


ii. 18 f . 


2 6 4 xii. 20 




289 


ii. 27-36 


279 xii. 31 




273 f., 301 


ii. 27 


26 2 xix. 32 




75 


ii. 36 


287,290 xx. 23, 28 




20 


iii. 13 


160 xxi. 10, 13 




160 


iii. 15 


264 






vi. 


266 in 


KINGDOMS LXX 


vi. 13-15 


302 .. 






vi. 14, 15 


266 f . u- 46h 




261 f. 


vii. 1 


267 






vii. 2-17 


167 


II KINGS 




vii. 2 


265 .. 






viii. 


167 xn. 8, 10, 11 




275 


viii. 17 


298 xv f ' H n 




275 


ix. 9 


2§ xvi. 13 




86, 187 n. 


x. 5 


269 xvi. 15 




281 n. 


x. 17-27a 


167 xix ' 2 




275 


xii. 


167 xix - 32 




75 


xii. 6, 8 


273 xxiii. 4 




275 


xiii. 3 


269 XXY - 18 




275 


xvii. 47 


289 






XXV. 11 


145 


ISAIAH 




xxviii. 6 


274 ... ni 








* ,! * viii. 21 




160 


II SAMUEL 


x. 8. 10 
x. 12 




160 






161 


vi. 


267 x. 29 




268' 


vi. 13 


271 xxii. 15 




261 


vi. 18 


259 xxxvii. 2 




275 



Index I 



345 



JEREMIAH 



1. 

i. 1 

vii. 12, 14 
xix. 1 
xxii. 18 
xxvi. 6, 9 
xxvii. 19 
xxx ii. 

xxxiii. 18-22 
xxxiii. 18-21 
xxxvii. 12 
lii. 24 



213 

302 f. 

268 

275 

75 
268 

75 
84, 302 
273 
275 
301 
275 



xiv. 21 



n. 

ii. 1-9 
iii. 3 



xii. 9 



ZECHARIAH 



MALACHI 



JOB 



239 



273 
276 
276 



106 



xii. 12 

xiii. 7 

xxii. 26 

xxviii. 2 

xxviii. 12 

xxviii. 22, 24 

xxix. 14, 15- 

xl. 45 f . 

xii. 46 

xlii. 14 

xliii. 7 ff. 

xliv. 6-16 

xliv. 9-14 

xliv. 23 

xliv. 28 

xlv. 4 ff. 

xlv. 16 f . 

xlv. 17 

xlvi. 2, 4-8, 11-18 

xlvi. 19r-24 

xlviii. 



iv. 5 

v. 22, 25 



ii. 5 

iv.8 
vi. 4 



AMOS 



MICAH 



162 
75 

277 
161 

161 f. 
162 

162 f. 
278 
273 
280 
280 
279 

237 f. 

283 n. 
305 
280 

282 n. 
86 

281 n. 

282 n. 
305 



187 n. 
187 n. 



289 

28 

273 



xvii. 2 
xxx. 23 



iii. 1 
v. 5 

x. 33 (32) 
x. 36 (35) 



PROVERBS 



NEHEMIAH 



I CHRONICLES 



ix. 32 
xviii. 17 
xxii. 13 
xxiii. 28 
xxiii. 29 
xxiii. 30, 31 
xxv. 
xxv. 4 
xxv. 5, 6 
xxvii. 33 f. 
xxviii. 20 



219 n. 
219 n. 



28 

85 

299 

296 n. 



238 
260 
224 
239 
238, 239 
239 

285 n. 

285 n. 

285 n„ 286 n. 

262 

224 



II CHRONICLES 



xiii. 
xiii. 11 
xiii. 22 
xxiv. 27 
xxx. 27 
xxxii. 7 



285 n. 

238 

284, 284 n. 

284 n. 

257 n. 

224 



346 Pentateuchal Studies 

CODE OF HAMMURABI 

SECTION 



7 
9ff. 

15-20 
20 

23 ff. 

23 
25 

35-38 

42 ff. 

45 

46 

48 

49-52 

53-56 

57 ff. 

103 

104 ft*. 

106 

107 

108 

115 

117 

120 

122 ff. 

132 

134 

138-140 

138 



PAGE 


SECTION 


PAGE 


308 


142 ff. 


320 


313 


142 


319 


311 


143 


307 rc. 


334 


167 


319 


308 


168 ff. 


313 


326 


173, 174, 176 


319 


308 


179 


321 


311 


192, 193 


313 


319 


195 


311, 313 


316, 324 


196-197 


309 


323 


198 


. 310 


323 


206-208 


324 


316, 326 


206 


308 


316 


218 


321 


315 


227 


323 


318 


229 ff. 


310 


308, 323 


229 ' 


324 


320 


237 


314 


312 


249 


323 


312 


250-252 


323 


327 


259 ff. 


315 


323 


261 


317, 317 n. 


326 


263-267 


317 n. 


308 


263 


318 


321 


265 


312 


308 


266 


323 


320 


267 


318 


308 


275-277 


314 


319 


278 


323 



INDEX II 

SUBJECTS 



Aaron, . 233, 235 ff., 243-248, 

250 f., 253-257, 272, 280 ff. ; 
called "the Levite," 248-250. 

Aaron, Sons of, 235 ff., 243-248, 
250 f., 253-257, 272, 280 ff. ; 
see also Zadok. 

Abiathar, 260, 274 f., 282. 

Abinadab, 269 f. 

Abraham, 18, 67 f., 77-83, 87; a 
personal name, 8, 18; called 
a " prophet," 75 f. ; acquisi- 
tion of the field of Machpelah, 
84. 

Admah, 5, 27. 

Ahitophel, 262. 

Akiba, 16, 128. 

Altar, 4, 86, 146; lay and 
horned, 225-229, 299; not an 
asylum, 300; see also House 
and Altar. 

Amnesty for fugitive slayer, 
288. 

Amorite, land of, 19. 

Amtacliath, 42. 

Anathoth, 301 f. 

Animals, list of forbidden, 183. 

Anthropomorphism, 19 ff. ; Sep- 
tuagintal avoidance of, 20. 

Apastamba, 316, 318. 

Appellations, Divine, 3. 131 f., 
139, 147; in Genesis, 51 ff., 
55-61, 64 f„ 71, 91, 114, 118; 
in Job, 106; see also Skin- 
ner's " Genesis " and Astruc, 
clue of. 

Aquila, 16, 53, 111, 160, 163, 
166, 230. 

Archaeology, 7 f . 

Archon and cognates, 160-165; 
see also King and ruler. 

Ark, 10; carried by Levites, 256, 
263 ; return from Philistines, 
265 f. ; abode of, 265-268; at 
Beth-shemesh, 266 f. ; at Kir- 
jathi-jearim, 269 f . ; taken to 
Jerusalem, 271 f. 

Armenian, 166. 

Assyriologists, 8. 

Astruc, clue of, 4, 38, 51 ff., 61, 
76, 105 n.; school of, 138. 



Atonement, Day of, 170, 191. 
Aularch, 260 f. 

Babylonia, legislation of; see 

Hammurabi, Code of. 
Baentsch, Bruno, 7. 
Barton, G. A., 13 ff. 
Baudissin, 242 n. 
Benaiah, 261. 
Ben Asher, 131. 
Bethel, 26, 301 f. 
Beth-shemesh, 266 f., 301 f. 
Bible, Hebrew, 6 ; see also Mas- 

soretic Text. 
Bikkurim, 187 n., 294-298. 
Blass, 214 n. 
Blessing, priestly and other, 257, 

259 f. 
Blood-feud, 85, 176, 180. 
Bohairic, 38, 244. 
Booty, laws of, 10. 
Boyd, J. O., 225 f. 
Briggs, C. A., 105 n., 127-133, 

135. 197, 217 f. ; and S. R. 

Driver, correspondence with, 

90-113, 127, 135. 
Brown, F.. 197. 
Biihler, 316. 
Burney, C. F., 8. 
Burnt-offerings, 186. 

Cain. 64, 85. 

Caleb, 27. 

"Canaan, land of," 73 f., 80; 

division of, 282 n., 300 f. 
"Canaanite and Perizzite," 26. 
"Captain of the guard," 30 ff. 
Carpenter, J. Estlin, 26, 31, 40, 

192, 199, 258. 
Cases, decided ; see Legislation. 
Cheyne, T. K., 261. 
Chronicler, 259, 260 f., 284 n., 

285 n., 286 7?-. 
Chronology, difficulties of, 23. 
Chrysostom, 36 f. 
Circumcision, 87. 
Cities of refuge, 85, 180, 300. 
Commentaries, Jewish, 16. 
Common Prayer, Book of, 130. 
Condamin, 93. 



347 



348 



Pentateuchal Studies 



"Congregation," 289. 

Conquest, laws of, 10. 

Conveyance, of field of Machpe- 
lah, 84; in Jeremiah, 84. 

Corban, 171, 186, 187 n. 

Cornill, C. H., 204. 

Corruptions of text; see Criti- 
cism, textual. 

Courts, constitution of, 182 f . 

Covenant, 204 f . ; between God 
and Israel, 178, 330; at Sinai, 
180, 190, 192 n.; land. 180; 
Deuteronomy, 180 ; rest of 
legislation, 180; book of the, 
296, 298. 

Cox, A. P., 52, 92, 138 ff. 

Criminal Law ; see Hammurabi, 
Code of, Legislation. 

Criticism, principles of conser- 
vative, work on, Iff., 124 ff.. 
195; textual, 6 f.. 11, 15, 19 f., 
22 ff., 27 f.. 129, 157-168, 231 f., 
234 f., 237, 243 ff., 249. 261, 
266 f., 274; bearing of textual, 
on history and faith, 13-18; 
textual, of story of Joseph, 
29-48 ; textual, of Genesis ; see 
Skinner's " Genesis," Isaac ; 
textual, of concluding chapters 
of Exodus, 152, 156; textual, 
of concluding chapters of 
Numbers, 15, 203 ; textual, im- 
portance of, 129-137; and see 
Glosses, Massoretic Text, Sep- 
tuagint ; higher, see Higher 
Criticism. 

Cuq, E., 319. 

Curses. 177. 177 n., 179, 191; 
and see Legislation, appeal 
to religion. 

Curtis, 284 n., 285 n., 28Qn. 

D, 75, 82, 85 f., 171, 187, 202- 
206, 251, 256. 

Dahse. J., 13, 52, 55, 90. 

Dan, 28. 

Dareste, 288. 

David; see Ark, Blessing. 

Deborah, Song of, 64. 

Debtors, insolvent, 175 f. 

Decalogue, 192 n. ; Mosaic au- 
thorship of. 8; and see Cove- 
nant, Sinaitic. 

De Morgan. 306. 

De Rossi, 36, 38. 



Descriptions, contemporary, true 
to life, 10. 

Deuteronomy, style of, 195-224; 
unity of, 11; Mosaic author- 
ship of, 169; legislation of, 
see Legislation ; intended for 
public reading, 181 ; construc- 
tion of, 210 ; rhythm of, 213 f . ; 
see also Driver. 

Dillmann, A., 149. 

Discrepancies in Pentateuch ; 
see Pentateuch. 

Dittography, 166. 

Divine appellations ; see Appel- 
lations. 

Documents, clue to ; see Astruc. 

Dooms, 180. 

Door and Sanctuary, 148; see 
also House and Altar. 

Doublets, 30, 34, 35. 

Drink-offering, 86, 187, 187 n. 

Driver, S. R., 22 f., 28, 134 f„ 
137 n., 167, 170-173, 197-213; 
on Exodus, 143-151 ; see also 
Briggs. 

Duhm, B., 161. 

E, 13, 31, 34-38, 41, 45, 59, 66- 

76, 81 n., 82, 86 f., 206 n., 250, 

258 ; see also JE. 
Ex, 70. 

Eder, tower of, 28. 
Eerdmans, 7, 13, 52, 54 f., 106, 

111, 117 f., 125 n., 133, 143. 
Egyptian life, 10. 
Eleazar, son of Aaron, 244, 251 ; 

son of Abinadab, 267 f., 270. 
Eli and his sons, 160, 265, 282 n., 

287, 291. 
Eli, house of, 272 f. 
Elohim, 148 n., 150 ; and see 

Appellations. 
Esau, 22, 24, 67, 77. 
Exodus; see Driver, Legislation. 
Ethiopic, 36 f., 166, 169. 
Ezekiel, style of, 199 f. ; picture 

of future Israel, 304 f . ; and 

see Priests. 

Faith ; see Criticism. 
Feast of Weeks, 278, 295. 
Field, F. ; see Hexapla. 
First-fruits; see Bilckurim, Re- 

shith. 
Firstlings, 192-194, 293 f. 



Index II 



349 



Gautama, 318. 

Geba ; see Gibeah. 

Genesis, early chapters of, 5 ; 
unity of, 11 ; chronology of, 
76, 81 f . ; and see Isaac ; his- 
torical character of, 87 f. ; 
Post-Mosaica of; see Post- 
Mosaica ; opening words of, 
207 ; text of, see Skinner and 
Criticism ; Divine appellations 
in, see Appellations. 

Gesenius-Kautzsch, 149. 

Gibeah, Gibeon, Geba, 268 f. 

Gideon, sacrifice by, 259 n. 

Giesebrecht, 73. 

Glosses, 15, 26, 28-38, 40-45, 48, 
59, 69 n., 70 f., 74, 81 f., 152 f., 
159-163, 165, 166, 234 f., 254 f., 
266, 275. 

Gomorrah, 5, 27. 

Gordon, A. R., 90-94, 137f., 140 n. ; 
correspondence with, 114-123. 

Gottsberger, 57 n., 58 n. 

Graf- Wellhausen theory ; see 
Wellhausen. 

Gray, G. B., 10. 

Green, W. H., 167. 

Gressmann, 64. 

Griffiths, J. S., 124. 

Guilt-offering, 170, 188. 

Gunkel, 58. ' 

H, 204. 

Hagar, 67, 68, 78, 81. 

Hammurabi, Code of, 8, 306- 
338 ; conditions in which com- 
piled, 306 f. ; influence of 
early ideas, 307-313; geo- 
graphical influence, ,313-319; 
resemblances of, to early He- 
brew custom, 328 f . ; divorce 
in, and in Sumerian legisla- 
tion, 307; talion in, 309 f. ; 
sympathetic talion in, 310 f . ; 
land laws, 315 f ; Indian par- 
allel to land laws, 316; law 
of theft in, 311 f. ; parallel 
from Narada to, 311 ; com- 
pared with Roman, 325 f. ; 
laws of employers in, with 
Indian parallel, 317 f. ; law 
of liability for damage done 
by sheep in, with Indian par- 
allel, 318 f. ; laws of property 
in connection with marriage 



in, 319; laws as to royal offi- 
cers with English parallel, 

319 f . ; laws of marriage, 320 ; 
later legal machinery in, 

320 f. ; law of legal docu- 
ments, 321 f. ; law of succes- 
sion and settlements, 321 ; fees 
for work done and Indian 
parallel, 321 f . ; penalties for 
want of care or skill, 321 f. ; 
laws of property, 322 f . ; pa- 
tria potestas in, 312 f. ; class 
distinctions, 322, 327; treat- 
ment of intellectual element 
in offenses, 323 f . ; character- 
istics of, 320-329; savage na- 
ture of, 324 f. ; object, 325 ff., 
338; ideals of, 325, 327, 338; 
comparison with Hebrew code, 
328-333; boat-hire in, and 
Manu, 313 f. 

Harford-Battersby, G., 199. 

Harper, W. R., 134. 

Heave-offering, 294. 

" Hebrews, land of the," 27 f. ' 

Hebron, 27. 

Hexapla, 33, 35, 111, 118, 135, 
157, 160-165, 249, 261. 

High Priest, 245, 287 ff. ; and 
see Aaron, Eli, Priests, Zadok. 

Higher Criticism, arguments of, 
1-9, 19 ff., 23 ff., 26 ff., 30 f., 
34 f., 58 ff., 62-66, 67 f., 169- 
224, 231-283, 287 ff., 290 ff. ; 
often destroyed by textual 
criticism, 30 f., 71 ; see also 
Astruc, Briggs, Driver, Skin- 
ner, Wellhausen. 

History, see Criticism ; influence 
of, on law, see Hammurabi. 

Hitzig, 261. 

Holines, 34, 164. 

Homicide, Noah's law of, 84 ; 
Babylonian law, 84 ; Cain, 85 ; 
see Cities of Refuge, Hammu- 
rabi. 

Homoeoteleuton, 31 n. 

Hoonacker; see Van Hoonacker. 

Hort, 135. 

House and Altar, 4, 225 ; see 
also Sanctuary. 

Hushai, 262. 

Idolatey, prohibition of, 192 n. 
Incense, 254. 



350 



Pentateuchal Studies 



Inheritance, 11. 

Injunction, 175. 

Ira, 261. 

Isaac, age of, 22 ff., 67. 69, 77. 

Ishmael, 23, 78 f„ 82. 

Ishmaelites ; see Joseph. 

Israel ; see Jacob. 

J, 6, 26, 31, 32-38, 41, 45, 58 ff., 
63, 66-71, 79-82, 86 f., 88, 208, 
251, 258; see also JE. 

J 1 , 13. 

J 2 , 13. 

Jx, 70. 

Jacob, 22, 24, 67, 71-73, 77; 
names of, 34-38, 41; vow of, 
298. 

Jairite ; see Ira. 

Jamnia, school of, 128, 130. 

Jattirite; see Ira. 

JE, 77, 81, 83, 85 f., 171. 181 w., 
202-206, 209 f., 212, 213, 248. 

Jealousy, law of, 189. 

Jeremiah, style of, 199 f . ; his 
holding at Anathoth, 301 f. 

Jeroboam, 273, 301. 

Jerome, 33, 40. 

Jewish Quarterly Review. 124. 

Joab, 300. 

Jonathan, 249, 258. 

Joseph. Story of, 70-73 ; discrep- 
ancies, 30 ff., 41 f., 45-48; his- 
torical difficulty of, 39 ff.; 
recognition of brethren, 34, 
41 ; unity of narrative, 42, 67 ; 
in prison, 30-33 ; sale of corn, 
39-41 ; discovery of returned 
money, 43 f . ; Judah and Reu- 
ben, 45. 

Joshua, 251. 

Jubilee, 170, 177, 181 n. 

Judah, 45, 45 n., 85 f., 89, 

Jurisprudence, comparative, evi- 
dence of, 83 ff. 

Jus vitw necisque; see Patria. 

Kalchi, 64. 

Kautzsch, 148 n. 

Keil, 22. 

Kennicott, 36 f. 

Kent, C. F., 146. 

King and ruler, 157-168, 282 n. 

King's friend. 202. 

Kiiicr's offering, 281 n. 

King, L., 314. 

Kirjath-jearim, 268 f. 



Klostermann, 52, 135. 
Kohath ; see Priests. 
Konig. E., 27, 169. 
Koran, 254 f. 
Korban ; see Corban. 
Kraetzschmar, 83, 162. 
Kuenen, 74, 240. 
Kulischer, 85 n. 
Kijrios; see Appellations. 

Lagakde, 135, 245 n. 

Land laws, 170, 172, 176, 179, 

180 ff. ; and see Hammurabi. 
Law of sacrifice, sacred sea- 
sons, moral and religious du- 
ties, 181 f . ; priestly, 184 ; in 
Genesis, 219 f . ; see also Legis- 
lation. 

Legislation, " pre-Israelite," 8 ; 
in Exodus, 8 ; date of Priestly, 
10 ; historical evolution of, 11 ; 
Mosaic authenticity of Penta- 
teuchal, 11 ; Deuteronomic, 
170-193 ; means of enforcing, 
174; absence of central pow- 
er, 176 ; regulates private 
revenge. 176; appeal to relig- 
ion, 177 and mi. ; priestly 
teaching, 184, 191, 282, 283 n. ; 
substantive law and procedure 
in, 185 ; constitutional, ad- 
ministrative, and laws of war, 
182; public and private, 182; 
oaths and vows. 182; groups 
of, 180 f. ; by courts, 179; ap- 
peal to history in, 179 n. ; 
jural law, 181 ff., 189 f., 191 f., 
306; compared with Code of 
Hammurabi, 328-333. 

Leprosy, laws of, 1S9, 246, 247, 
252 f., 256. 

Levites ; see Priests. 

Levitical Cities. 170, 181 and n., 
256, 301-304. 

Linguistic evidence, 62, 65, 68 n., 
69, 71. 

Lot. 78 f. 

Lucian, 38, 53, 118, 135, 261 f. 

Maccabean Text. 105, 130. 
Machpelah, Field of, 84. 
McNeile. A. IL, 143. 
Madsen, 284??. 
Maine, Sir H., 308. 
Manasseh ; see Moses. 



Index II 



351 



Manoah, sacrifice by, 259 n. 

Manu, 313 f., 317. 

Manumission of slaves, 174, 
186 n. 

Marriage; see Hammurabi. 

Massab and Meribah, 69 n. 

Massoretic Text, 6, 16, 19 f., 23, 
29-38, 39^18, 50-61, 90 f., 103- 
122, 127-134, 138 f., 152-155, 
157-168, 234 f., 238, 244, 248 f., 
260, 268 f. ; bistory of, 128 f. 

Meal-offering, 170, 186 f., 295, 
297. 

Melek and cognates; see King. 

Meribab, 69 n. 

Micab, 273. 

Midianites ; see Josepb. 

Midianitisb women, 10 f. 

Moller, W., 125. 

Molocb, 165, 190. 

Monotheism, early date of, 7. 

Morgan ; see De Morgan. 

" Moriab, land of," 19. 

Mosaic age, our knowledge of, 7. 

Moses, 169, 171, 200; laws of; 
see Legislation ; motives of, 
173; limitations under wbicb 
legislated, 174-179; as orator, 
213 f. ; stylistic models, 213 ff. ; 
corruption of name of, 249 ; 
blessing of, 251 ; grandson of, 
see Jonathan. 

Mountains, God of, 20 f. 

Murder, law of ; see Amnesty, 
Cain, Homicide. 

Naboth, 160. 

Narada, 308 f., 311, 313, 317; 

and see Hammurabi. 
Nazirites, law of, 189. 
Negeb, 152-156. 
Netbinim, 283. 
New Testament, quotations from 

LXX in, 17. 
Nicoll, Sir W. R., 94. 
Noah, 83 f. 
Norden, 214. 
Numbers ; see Criticism. 
Numbers, use of round, 23. 

Obed-edom, 271. 
Occasional commands, 184. 
Offenses ; see Hammurabi. 
Old Latin, 37, 155, 157, 166, 233, 
244. 



Old Testament, Canon of, 128. 

Origen, 35, 163, 262. 

Orr, J., 12, 28, 66-69, 221. 

P, 11, 13, 34-38, 43 f„ 59, 69 
70, 73 f., 77, 82 ff., 86, 89 
170 f., 202, 206, 208 ff., 212 
233, 237-242, 252-258, 277 f. 

Patria Potestas, 85, 328, 332 
and see Hammurabi. 

Peace-offering, 186, 189, 293 n. 

Pentateuch, 4w., 6, 11, 173, 245, 
287. 

Perizzite ; see Canaanite. 

Plagues, story of, 201. 

Poels, H. A., 269 f. 

Poll-tax, 299. 

Post, A. H., 85 n., 310, 311. 

Post on Gaius, 311 f. 

Postgate, J. P., 136. 

Post-Mosaica, the, of Genesis, 
26 ff. 

Potiphar, 30 f. 

Pre-Mosaica, 5 f., 27, 63 f., 87, 
123. 

Priests, 190, 244-248, 251-257; 
in Ex. xix., 230; Zadokite, 
see Zadok; dues payable to, 
193 f., 290 ff.; and Levites, 167, 
170, 191 f., 231-283; and Le- 
vites in P, 233-244, 252-257, 
282; in JE, 248-251; in D, 
252-257, 282 ; in Joshua, 257 f. ; 
in Judges, 258 f., 273 ; in Sam- 
uel and Kings, 259-275 ; in 
Jeremiah, Haggai, and Mala- 
chi, 276; in Ezekiel, 237 f., 
241 f., 273, 277-281, 281 n., 

282 ff. ; in Chronicles, 238 ff., 
241 f. ; in time of Nehemiah, 

283 n. ; numbers of, 243 ; 
Aaronic priesthood practically 
merged in Levitical, 252 f. ; 
summary, 281-284. 

Procedure; see Legislation. 
Prohibited degrees, 189. 
Property ; see Hammurabi. 
"Prophet," 28, 75 f. 
Psalter, text of, 130. 
Puukko, A. F., 7f. 

Quails, flight of, 10. 
Quasi-jurat, 178. 

R ; see Redactor. 



352 



Pentateuchal Studies 



Rebekah, 22. 

Redactor, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 68, 

71, 72-76, 258. 
Rje, 206 ft. 
Redpath, H. A., 52, 54, 55, 58, 

61, 116, 118. 
Religious capital, 193, 194. 
Repetitions, 182. 
Beshith, 294-298. 
Reuben, 45, 45 ft., 85. 
Roman law ; see Hammurabi. 
Rotbaris, 312. 

Sabbath ' year, 176, 181 ft. 

Sacrifice, 86 f., 170, 172, 183 f., 
186 ff., 191 f., 247 f., 259, 292- 
297 ; and see Altar, Gideon, 
Manoab, Solomon. 

Sabidic, 169. 

Salem, 28. 

Samaritan Pentateucb, 39 ft., 53, 
54, 91, 106, 110 f., 166 ft. 

Samuel, 167 f., 263 ff. 

Sanctuary ; see Altar, Door. 

Saq, 42 f. 

Sarah, 30, 76, 78. 

Saul, 6 ft. 

Sayce, A. H., 314 f. 

Scbmidt, Aage, 125. 

Scblogl, N. J., 14, 53, 54, 91, 96, 
98, 106, 113 f., 133, 140 f. 

Sea, 26 f. 

Sellin, E., 8. 

Septuagint, 16 f., 19 f., 23, 24, 
27 f., 29-38, 39 ft., 40-48, 50- 
61, 72 f.. 79-82, 103-122, 127- 
134, 138, 152-155, 157-169, 
234 f., 244, 249 f., 251 ft., 260 ff., 
269, 272, 274, 276, 279; and 
see Skinner's " Genesis " ; He- 
brew corroboration of, vari- 
ant, 92, 96, 106, 110f., 157. 

Settlement ; see Hammurabi. 

Sexual offenses, 190. 

Sbaddai ; see Appellations, in 
Job. 

Silence, arguments from, 170- 
194. 

Sin-offering, 170 f., 188. 

Skinner, J., 14, 138-141; edition 
of Genesis, 49-89, 90-123. 

Slaves ; see Hammurabi, Prop- 
erty, Manumission. 

Slaughter, non-sacrificial, 62, 86, 
116, 123, 145, 292 f., 293 ft. 



Smitb, H. P., 133 f. 

Smitb, W. R., 105 ft., 129, 152. 

Sodom, 5, 27. 

Solomon, time of, 19, 26; sup- 
posed reminiscences of, 167 ; 
Temple of, 239, 281; sons of 
tbe servants of, 283; sacrifice 
by, 248; deposes Abiatbar, 
274, 282; blessing of; see 
Blessing. 

Spinoza, 201. 

Steuernagel, 4 ft. 

Style, argument from, 5, 67 f., 
71-75, 80; in Deuteronomy, 
195-224; in Lev. i.-vii., 205 f. ; 
terseness of, in codes memor- 
ized, 181, 190. 

Substantive law; see Legisla- 
tion. 

Succession; see Hammurabi. 

Sumerian legislation, 307. 

Swete, H. B., 20, 50, 58 ft., 104. 

Symmacbus, 160 ft., 162 f., 261, 
261 ft. 

Syriac, 16, 37, 54 ff., 97, 118, 
261, 275 f., 279. 

Syro-Hexaplar, 37. 

Talion ; see Hammurabi. 

Targums, 16, 53, 111, 269, 275. 

Tel el-Amarna tablets, 8, 28. 

Tent "a" and "tbe," 148 f. 

Tent of Meeting, 170 f., 193 ft., 
268. 

Terumali, 295. 

Tetragrammaton ; see Appella- 
tions, Astruc. 

Textual Criticism ; see Criticism. 

Tbeft; see Hammurabi. 

Tbeodotion, 160, 162 f., 261. 

Theos; see Appellations. 

Tigris, 64. 

Tisdall, W. St. Clair, 124. 

Tithe. 294, 296 ff. 

Toy, C. H., 9, 61, 105 ft,, 132 ff. 

Transpositions, 15. 

Tribal System, 11. 

Troelstra, A., 125 ft., 230. 

Uzzah, 270. 

Vax Hoonacker, 269 f., 282 ft., 

301, 305. 
Variants ; see Criticism. 
Vatican MS., 169. 



Index II 



353 



Versions, ancient, 6, 16, 50, 53, 
66, 105 n., 117, 132 f., 135, 235, 
268 ; see also Old Latin, Septu- 
agint, Syriac, Syro-Hexaplar, 
Targums, Vulgate, Aquila, 
Symmachus, Theodotion, Bo- 
hairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Ar- 
menian. 

Vetter, 57 n. 

Vulgate, 17, 31 n., 32, 33 n„ 34 n., 
35 ff., 3&n., 41, Q9n., 81 f., 
105 n., 130, 233, 244, 245, 
251 n., 275 f., 279. 

Wave-offering, 295, 297. 
Weeks; see Feast. 
Weiss, J., 152. 



Wellhausen, J., 4, 70, 144, 230; 
School of, 7, 13, 14, 116 f., 
119 f., 123, 145, 225; Prolego- 
mena of, 8; fourth chapter of, 
231-289; fifth chapter of, 
290-305. 

West; see Sea. 

Witchcraft, 190. 

"Word," 218-222. 

Wright, G. Frederick, 88. 

Writing, 84, 175, 336. 

Zabud, 262. 

Zadok, Sons of Zadok, 260, 265, 

271-275, 278 ff., 282 f. 
Zeboiim, 5, 27. 



Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism 

By HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B. 
Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law 

255 Pages, 8<vo 

" He [the author] has; brought together in this volume a mass 
of learned observation and argument which cannot be disregarded, 
and we await with interest the answers which it claims in detail 
from the representatives of the critical school in this country." 
— The Very Rev. Henry Wage, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, in The 
Churchman ( London ) . 

" No one can face this argumentation and continue to hold the 
Wellhausen divisive theory concerning the Pentateuch without 
finding for himself what is for him a sufficient answer thereto. 
Self-respect could allow no less." — Professor M. G. Kyle, D.D. 

" The author shows himself a serious and painstaking scholar, 
and here launches a formidable attack against the widely accepted 
Documentary Theory as to the origin and structure of the Penta- 
teuch." — Principal J. S. Clemens, in The United Methodist Maga- 
zine. 

" These Essays deserve the careful consideration of all those 
who . . . desire to know whether the Higher Critical position is 
tenable or not." — The Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, D.D., in The 
Record. 

" The book is a most important contribution to the criticism of 
the Pentateuch." — The Tablet. 

"An interesting volume . . . contributing to all points not merely 
the negative work of criticising critics, but the more difficult and 
positive effort of personal interpretation. . . . The style is simple 
and clear, so that it is a book to be appreciated by a very large 
class of readers." — The Catholic World. 

" We have on the main question of its subject matter only words 
of praise for this acute and diligent student. The clarity with 
which he exhibits the uncertain textual basis of the documentary 
hypothesis, particularly in the matter of the divine names, deserves 
the highest praise, and, though not a new indictment against that 
hypothesis, is probably for the first time given an adequate and 
systematic treatment." — Professor J. Oscar Boyd, in The Prince- 
ton Theological Review. 

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA COMPANY, OBERLIN, OHIO, U. S. A. 
London: ELLIOT STOCK, 7 Paternoster Row, E. C. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR 

The Origin of the Pentateuch 

A Comprehensive Answer to the 
Wellhausen Critics 

150 pages, 8vo 

" Mr. Wiener here upholds the Mosaic authorship, subjecting to 
a close critical and destructive examination the familiar docu- 
mentary and development theory of the Wellhausen School." — The 
Times (London). 

" One cannot forbear to praise the lucid manner in which Mr. 
Wiener sets forth his arguments, or the handy introduction which 
this little volume forms to the subject of the Higher Criticism." — 
The Academy. 

" We take pleasure in subscribing assent to this critic's general 
lines of attack and defense and in admiring the freshness with 
which he approaches the legal questions involved."— Professor J. 
Oscae Boyd, in The Princeton Theological Review. 

" The book as a whole imperatively demands the attention of all 
scholars, whatever may be their views. The ablest and best in- 
formed of Old Testament scholars will here find a foeman worthy 
of their steel, one who cannot be overlooked, or set aside as a 
' negligible quantity.' Slowly, but surely, during the last few years, 
Mr. Wiener has been compelling men to listen to him, whether they 
agree or not." — The Rev. Professor W. H. Geiffith Thomas, in 
The Canadian Churchman. 

" No one who reads Mr. Wiener's book on ' The Origin of the 
Pentateuch ' can fairly deny that its plea for a more conservative 
conception on that subject than at present so extensively prevails 
is supported by facts, reasoning, and learning which entitle it to 
a most respectful and attentive hearing. The interest of the work 
lies in the fact that it comes from the pen of a Jew contending 
for the validity of his ancient Scriptures, yet on lines most of 
which a Christian can heartily appropriate; further, that the 
writer is a layman of highly trained mind in his own legal pro- 
fession, to whom questions of law and evidence present a more 
familiar aspect than they do to the theologian ; further still, that 
he is a man of large scholarly equipment, a skilled Hebraist, well 
versed in the critical literature of the day, English, Continental, 



and American, familiar as few are with Septuagint, Samaritan, 
and other version lore, and capable of wielding a vigorous, argu- 
mentative pen. There is nothing hackneyed in Mr . Wiener's 
style of argument. If conservative, he is conservative on his own 
lines; is bold, daring, ingenious, fertile in suggestion; a writer 
who, whether one always agrees with him or not, invariably gives 
his reader something worth thinking about." — Rev. Professor James 
Ore, D.D., in The British Weekly. 

" We think this book the ablest which the author has yet pro- 
duced, and from the first page to the last his arguments are clear, 
fair, and reasonable. ... No difficulty is shunned, no hostile criti- 
cism is left untouched." — The Life of Faith. 

" His splendid and exact .scholarship is everywhere apparent, 
and he writes with rare brilliancy of diction, as well as with co- 
gency of logic." — The Homiletic Review. 

" Mr. Wiener has shown in this and his other works points of 
evidence based on textual grounds, of which formerly hardly any 
account was taken. We are convinced that he has shown very 
strong reasons for believing that often simpler explanations can 
thus be given to puzzling Pentateuchal phenomena than by the 
fanciful neo-critical conclusions for which something like iner- 
rancy is claimed. We avow our sincere gratitude to Mr. Wiener, 
and trust that he will be enabled to continue his most effective 
work." — The Record. 

N. B. A German translation of this work is in preparation and 
will shortly be published. In Holland Dr. A. Troelstra has writ- 
ten of it as follows on page 11 of " De Naam Gods in den Penta- 
teuch " : "Aan dit boek en aan de Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism 
van denzelfden auteur heb ik menige opmerking en vingerwijzing 
te danken, die mij van dienst waren bij het schrijven van dit 
opstel. De schrijver is een Joodsch jurist, en zijne opmerkingen 
omtrent de wetgeving van den Pentateuch lijken mij van het 
hoogste belang." 



BIBLIOTHECA SACRA COMPANY, OBERLIN, OHIO, U. S. A. 
London: ELLIOT STOCK, 7 Paternoster Row, E. C. 



Studies in Biblical La 



w 



BY 



HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn 
BARRISTER-AT-LAW 

Formerly a Senior Whewell Scholar of the 
University of Cambridge 

"A valuable volume, in which he [the author] criticizes, with 
damaging effect, much of the treatment by the Wellhausen school 
of the laws of the Pentateuch, and shows much cause for distrust- 
ing, for example, some of Dr. Driver's arguments on the subject." 
— The Very Rev. Henby Wace, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, in The 
Churchman (London). 

"As a whole, these ' Studies ' are of unusual worth. They ac- 
complish for certain Old Testament themes what Greenleaf, Lyt- 
tleton, and West did in Xew Testament lines." — Review and Ex- 
positor. 

" It is bold and refreshing .... our writer goes over ground 
trodden nearly two thousand years ago by the sages of the Mish- 
nah; but he strikes out his own line and stands forth much more 
logical than the old Pharisaic doctors." — The Evening Post (New 
York). 

" There is no doubt that in this examination of the Biblical jural 
laws Mr. Wiener has opened up a new and valuable source of in- 
formation as to the dates of the various books of the Pentateuch." 
— The Academy. 

"... both novel and interesting. . . . The method employed is 
an ingenious and skillful application of the principles of legal 
interpretation to texts in apparent conflict." — Harvard Load Re- 
view. 

"Altogether the volume is one of great importance and value." 
— Bioliotheca Sacra. 

" The work convincingly shows the necessity and certainty of a 
speedy broadening of the horizon of inquiry in critical Bible study." 
— Watchword and Truth. 

London: DAVID NUTT, 57-59 Long Acre 















1 ^ 





















- 



o 






- 
























































































. 








































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 





















I 






































































>? 


^ 
















0° 
























i> 











■f, <? 













< 

































%<& 






